Circular Reasoning Redux.

[eyeshaveit]

Is circular reasoning a valid reason to believe something is true?

Theoretical Atheists, using "circular reasoning", like to prove that there is no god.
Is there something or much wrong with that?

[Teaspoon Shallow]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

[ak.yonathan]

I think that reasoning of any kind can be suspect, the only thing that matters is whether it is in accord with reality or not. Often we associate reasoning with logic, well what if logic is wrong? What if logic doesn't really exist in reality and is just a man-made construct?

Sent from my SM-T331 using Tapatalk

[eyeshaveit]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

Is the use of "circular reasoning" the only path available to prove that there is no god, yes or no?

[Teaspoon Shallow]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

Is the use of "circular reasoning" the only path available to prove that there is no god, yes or no?

Why try and shoot down a plane that has never left the ground to begin with?   
It is not the non theists problem that the theistic assertion has failed to meet their burden of proof. 

Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot?

Do you understand this objection?

[eyeshaveit]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

Is the use of "circular reasoning" the only path available to prove that there is no god, yes or no?

Why try and shoot down a plane that has never left the ground to begin with?   
It is not the non theists problem that the theistic assertion has failed to meet their burden of proof. 

Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot?

Do you understand this objection?

(1) See #4 below.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes.

(4) TS, you brought "circular reasoning" into the fray discussion,

Is circular reasoning a valid reason to believe something is true?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

No, circular reasoning is not valid reasoning, it is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

That being said, the M?nchhausen trilemma posits that there are ultimately only 3 ways to prove something:
1. Circular reasoning
2. Infinite regression
3. Appeal to axioms

The first is, as above, logically fallacious and is the favored method of coherentists.

The second is also logically fallacious and is advocated by infinitists.

The third requires the bare assertion fallacy and as such is also logically fallacious. It is advocated by foundationalists.

I have yet to see a "proof" that escapes this trilemma.

[eyeshaveit]

So by definition then, circular reasoning used to support atheist dogma is null and void?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Circular reasoning used to support any dogma is null and void. Though if we take things to their logical conclusion, all knowledge appears to be null and void.

[none]

When are these retards going to understand there is no atheist dogma, that atheism is a lack of belief not a claim, and theists are the ones who regularly employ circular reasoning?


Even if, as an atheist, I say the Abrahamic deity beast is a myth that doesn't change the fact that atheism is a lack of belief.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

No, circular reasoning is not valid reasoning, it is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

That being said, the M?nchhausen trilemma posits that there are ultimately only 3 ways to prove something:
1. Circular reasoning
2. Infinite regression
3. Appeal to axioms

The first is, as above, logically fallacious and is the favored method of coherentists.

The second is also logically fallacious and is advocated by infinitists.

The third requires the bare assertion fallacy and as such is also logically fallacious. It is advocated by foundationalists.

I have yet to see a "proof" that escapes this trilemma.

True and some hold to a strictly nihilistic position. 
If you accept the M?nchhausen trilemma as being a valid trilemma, on what basis can you accept it?

I freely admit I have presuppositions that I believe are properly basic.
1. I exist
2. Reality is real
3. I can learn about reality

I could be wrong about that but I have no other options which to navigate my experiences.   I cannot prove I am not in the matrix but I am going to live my life as though I am living my life and not a Sim.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

Is the use of "circular reasoning" the only path available to prove that there is no god, yes or no?

Why try and shoot down a plane that has never left the ground to begin with?   
It is not the non theists problem that the theistic assertion has failed to meet their burden of proof. 

Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot?

Do you understand this objection?

(1) See #4 below.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes.

(4) TS, you brought "circular reasoning" into the fray discussion,

Is circular reasoning a valid reason to believe something is true?

Yes I did but I am still waiting for your objection.  So far it looks like you are building a strawman but still haven't beaten it.

[eyeshaveit]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that. 

[none]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

No proof for God is using circular reasonin?

[Teaspoon Shallow]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who employs it. 

You are born without the knowledge of the Christian god correct?
The concept is taught to you at some age and you accept it as true (if you are a Christian).  What reason convinced you this concept is true?

[eyeshaveit]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

No proof for God is using circular reasonin?

Say what?

[eyeshaveit]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who employs it. 

You are born without the knowledge of the Christian god correct?
The concept is taught to you at some age and you accept it as true (if you are a Christian).  What reason convinced you this concept is true?

We (you and I) have discussed this at least twice in the past, and not to your satisfaction; 'three times' will not 'be the charm'.

It is equally 'frustrating' in this corner, that you continue to demand proof for my faith, but you refuse to offer proof for your faith; seemingly even denying (I think) the existence of any Atheist Dogma.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

If you accept the M?nchhausen trilemma as being a valid trilemma, on what basis can you accept it?

The trilemma is simply apparent, and I have yet to see an argument that does not appear subject to it.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

If you accept the M?nchhausen trilemma as being a valid trilemma, on what basis can you accept it?

The trilemma is simply apparent, and I have yet to see an argument that does not appear subject to it.

What I mean by that, how can you know it is true?
"Because it is apparent" seems to be an appeal to intuition.
The reasons to accept it also seem to fallacious. 
1. Circular reasoning
2. Infinite regression
3. Appeal to axioms

[Teaspoon Shallow]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who employs it. 

You are born without the knowledge of the Christian god correct?
The concept is taught to you at some age and you accept it as true (if you are a Christian).  What reason convinced you this concept is true?

We (you and I) have discussed this at least twice in the past, and not to your satisfaction; 'three times' will not 'be the charm'.

So you are not going to answer my 2 simple questions?

It is equally 'frustrating' in this corner, that you continue to demand proof for my faith, but you refuse to offer proof for your faith; seemingly even denying (I think) the existence of any Atheist Dogma.

Lets unpack this as I do not know what you are talking about.
I don't recall asking you for proof of your faith.
I did ask "What reason convinced you this concept is true?"
I consider that to be a different question.

What do you perceive as my faith an what would you like to know about it?

What is this atheist dogma and what has it got to do with me?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

What I mean by that, how can you know it is true?

I don't claim to know it's true.

The reasons to accept it also seem to fallacious.

I don't accept it. I simply have failed to reject it. I am not making a logical argument for it, and thus logical fallacies do not apply.

[eyeshaveit]

TS,
Perhaps you are putting too much stock in my posting this in the Non-Theism category?
But the OP only regards the differences (if any) of the use of circular reasoning, as proof of or not of God, by Atheists and Theists.
It is no more than that.

Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who employs it. 

You are born without the knowledge of the Christian god correct?
The concept is taught to you at some age and you accept it as true (if you are a Christian).  What reason convinced you this concept is true?

We (you and I) have discussed this at least twice in the past, and not to your satisfaction; 'three times' will not 'be the charm'.

So you are not going to answer my 2 simple questions?

It is equally 'frustrating' in this corner, that you continue to demand proof for my faith, but you refuse to offer proof for your faith; seemingly even denying (I think) the existence of any Atheist Dogma.

Lets unpack this as I do not know what you are talking about.
I don't recall asking you for proof of your faith.
I did ask "What reason convinced you this concept is true?"
I consider that to be a different question.

What do you perceive as my faith an what would you like to know about it?

What is this atheist dogma and what has it got to do with me?

My first reaction was, 'I don't have time for this', but that sounds much too impolite; so let me suggest that, intelligence-quotient-wise, you have at least 45 or more points on me, and my best answers are evidently never going to be of any benefit to you. Such insight unduly leads to a modicum of boredom and the overriding sense that I don't have time for this. Sorry.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

My first reaction was, 'I don't have time for this', but that sounds much too impolite; so let me suggest that, intelligence-quotient-wise, you have at least 45 or more points on me, and my best answers are evidently never going to be of any benefit to you. Such insight unduly leads to a modicum of boredom and the overriding sense that I don't have time for this. Sorry.

Starts a thread but doesn't want to discuss points you rasied.

OK. 

[Kiahanie]

I have no idea what you are asking.  Would you mind rephrasing the question please?

Is the use of "circular reasoning" the only path available to prove that there is no god, yes or no?

There is no "path available to prove that there is no god" and no path available to prove that there is a god.

To do either one "logically" requires questionable postulates.

[Case]

No, circular reasoning is not valid reasoning, it is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

That being said, the M?nchhausen trilemma posits that there are ultimately only 3 ways to prove something:
1. Circular reasoning
2. Infinite regression
3. Appeal to axioms

The first is, as above, logically fallacious and is the favored method of coherentists.

The second is also logically fallacious and is advocated by infinitists.

The third requires the bare assertion fallacy and as such is also logically fallacious. It is advocated by foundationalists.

I have yet to see a "proof" that escapes this trilemma.

This is good. Thanks, Mooby.

[Case]

No, circular reasoning is not valid reasoning, it is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

That being said, the M?nchhausen trilemma posits that there are ultimately only 3 ways to prove something:
1. Circular reasoning
2. Infinite regression
3. Appeal to axioms

The first is, as above, logically fallacious and is the favored method of coherentists.

The second is also logically fallacious and is advocated by infinitists.

The third requires the bare assertion fallacy and as such is also logically fallacious. It is advocated by foundationalists.

I have yet to see a "proof" that escapes this trilemma.

True and some hold to a strictly nihilistic position. 
If you accept the M?nchhausen trilemma as being a valid trilemma, on what basis can you accept it?

I freely admit I have presuppositions that I believe are properly basic.
1. I exist
2. Reality is real
3. I can learn about reality

I could be wrong about that but I have no other options which to navigate my experiences.   I cannot prove I am not in the matrix but I am going to live my life as though I am living my life and not a Sim.

@Teaspoon Shallow

Hey, I could argue with each one of your axioms. 

Might I suggest that your three axioms could all be summed up in one?

1. The physical senses provide trustworthy information about reality

[kevin]

the information doesn't have to be physical, case.

descartes stated  je pense, donc je suis as a proof of his own existence, and thinking isn't necessarily physical, because we don't yet know anything about consciousness.

you can argue that descartes overstated his argument, because really all he can say "thinking is occurring . . . " or "thinking exists."

but i think that would end up splitting hairs too finely. i'm willing to say that thinking requires a thinker, and so descartes argument would be

P1: i think

P2: to think requires a thinker

C: therefore i exist

if this syllogism provides trustworthy information about reality, then it has been accomplished without need for the physical senses.

[Goombah]

the information doesn't have to be physical, case.

descartes stated  je pense, donc je suis as a proof of his own existence, and thinking isn't necessarily physical, because we don't yet know anything about consciousness.

you can argue that descartes overstated his argument, because really all he can say "thinking is occurring . . . " or "thinking exists."

but i think that would end up splitting hairs too finely. i'm willing to say that thinking requires a thinker, and so descartes argument would be

P1: i think

P2: to think requires a thinker

C: therefore i exist

if this syllogism provides trustworthy information about reality, then it has been accomplished without need for the physical senses.

What types of thoughts could we have that wouldn't be initiated by our physical senses?

[kevin]

goombah, assume for the purposes of argument that you have been involved in an automobile accident that destroys your cranial nerves just below their entrance into your brain.

you have a physical body that maintains your circulation and respiration, but you have no sense of sight, touch, feeling, smell, or taste. you can think, but not sense.

teaspoon's point was that the senses provide proof of reality.

maybe they do.

but can reality be discerned to be real in their absence?

if i am conscious on a table, but in a physical coma, does reality exist if i can think about it?

[Goombah]

goombah, assume for the purposes of argument that you have been involved in an automobile accident that destroys your cranial nerves just below their entrance into your brain.

you have a physical body that maintains your circulation and respiration, but you have no sense of sight, touch, feeling, smell, or taste. you can think, but not sense.

My question then is this: What would I think about?If I'm thinking about the accident, for example ,those thoughts would be initiated by things that were experience by my physical senes IMO.

teaspoon's point was that the senses provide proof of reality.

maybe they do.

but can reality be discerned to be real in their absence?

I personally don't think they can.

if i am conscious on a table, but in a physical coma, does reality exist if i can think about it?

If you thought about it what would you thoughts be referencing?Memories? My memories are tied to the things that I've experienced through my senses.I guess the question is this: What have you thought about that had no reference point in the physical senses? I can't come up with anything in my own experience.

[kevin]

sometimes i think about relationships between ideas.

if i understand that a boundary exists, and that things exist on one side but not on the other, then i have completed a thought that requires no reference to physical senses.

i don't have to refer to anything physical to observe that some things are and some things are-not.

[Goombah]

sometimes i think about relationships between ideas.
if i understand that a boundary exists, and that things exist on one side but not on the other, then i have completed a thought that requires no reference to physical senses.

That is something you are able to do then it seems.Personally, I don't believe I'd understand in the abstract
that something has a 'boundary' without mentally drawing from a boundary that I've experienced with my senses.Same thing with things existing on one side or the other.I can't 'see' things on'opposite sides'
without mentally referencing a partition of some sort I had experienced in the physical.

i don't have to refer to anything physical to observe that some things are and some things are-not.

I guess I haven't gotten to that point yet.Those things, for me anyway,would have to be verified by application in the physical somehow.

[kevin]

here's a way to mentally visualize something that has no physical reference in the real world. the shape is irrelevant--it's just a symbol. all that is important is that a separation exists.



inside this circle is the group of things-that-are. outside this circle are all things-that-are-not. they don't have to exist-- the circle merely establishes the limits of things-that-are and says nothing about things-that-are-not except that they aren't inside the circle.

[kevin]

things-that-are don't have to exist either, they just have to be inside the circle if they do.

[Goombah]

here's a way to mentally visualize something that has no physical reference in the real world. the shape is irrelevant--it's just a symbol. all that is important is that a separation exists.

here too, you are asking me to mentally envision that concept but are using a prop that I have to literally see.Every time I envision something within a boundary I would start of by remembering what I had previously seen or experienced with my physical senses.

inside this circle is the group of things-that-are. outside this circle are all things-that-are-not. they don't have to exist-- the circle merely establishes the limits of things-that-are and says nothing about things-that-are-not except that they aren't inside the circle.

Maybe that is my stumbling block but I can't envision your example of things or concepts separated or contained within a boundary -regardless of their shape- without referencing a shape I'd use from remembering one  experienced through my physical senses.
My thoughts could be real because I've previously experienced reality through my senses.For me I can conceive of boundaries because I have seen them or felt them.

[kevin]

i don't use venn diagrams when i think, goombah. but you said you didn't understand, so i picked one out.

you don't need physical senses to understand that there are differences between classes of things. don't use a shape.

envision the difference between things that you believe and things that you don't believe. there is a separation between them, but there doesn't have to be a physical symbol or a remembered pattern.

all that has to occur is that you don't believe everything you hear.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

The first question to ask is if at least one thing exists. Most people take for granted their own consciousness exists in some form (Descartes) or that logical constructs exist such as mathematics (Hume), though a few nuts like me say that even these may be doubted (sort of like a dream with no dreamer.)

The second thing to ask if there is at least one thing that does not exist. Again, most people would say yes, citing logical contradictions and mathematical impossibilities, though some may hold the possibility of them existing in some alternate universe or dimension.

Assuming we can answer "yes" to both those questions, the final question is how we can tell which things exist and which do not. And the big hurdle here is how we determine which category the tools we use are in.

Descartes tried to solve this by using the consciousness he took to exist to derive an ontological proof of God. But those who do not buy that line of reasoning would need to find an alternate one.

[Goombah]

i don't use venn diagrams when i think, goombah. but you said you didn't understand, so i picked one out.

you don't need physical senses to understand that there are differences between classes of things. don't use a shape.

i'm not trying to be contradictory or intentionally obtuse Kev but even that sentence makes me think that I learned of the concept of 'difference' through experiences in the physical...I could see for example that all things don't look the same,feel the same ,smell the same ,taste the same or sound the same.For me then that concept of 'difference' can be applied to more abstract concepts.

envision the difference between things that you believe and things that you don't believe. there is a separation between them, but there doesn't have to be a physical symbol or a remembered pattern.

what understanding could I have of 'separation' if I'd never seen or heard separate things?I can apply 'separate' to thought because I have already learned the concept of separation through my physical senses.

all that has to occur is that you don't believe everything you hear.

But that too just circles back to applying the physical to information to partition it off,to separate it .If I hear or read something for example.

[kevin]

well, goombah, the original idea was case re-stating what he saw as teaspoon's rational for understanding things

1. The physical senses provide trustworthy information about reality

teaspoon was citing reasons for understanding that reality existed.

my point was that physical senses are not essential for providing trustworthy information about reality. i believe that one can think about ideas without using a physical reference, including physical symbols.

you can't use your senses to demonstrate the difference between "logical" and "illogical," for instance. but i can think through ideas and come to conclusions about reality without leaving the realm of the idea.

here's one

all A is B
all B is C
all A is C

is this argument true or false? you don't have to refer to any physical references to decide. there are two boundaries of separation here, and you can perceive them without your senses. you may want to use a physical example to make it clear to yourself, but the relationships don't require anything to be perceived by your senses.

what understanding could I have of 'separation' if I'd never seen or heard separate things?I can apply 'separate' to thought because I have already learned the concept of separation through my physical senses.

"separation" is the general condition, and "things determined to be separate through my physical senses" is a special case. you would never have understood how things could be separated by your physical senses if you didn't already have an understanding of what "separate" meant.

we're so used to understanding things in a sensory way that we forget that understanding something is a mental process. we then use the physical references as aids to explain or remember it, but understanding doesn't need the physical.

ever understood something in a dream so clearly that you wopndered how you ever culd have missed it, and then when you wke up after a while you couldn't understand it anymore? your subconscious is processing information at a level so far removed from your daily life that you can't even understand it anymore until you dream again. then it comes right back.

[Goombah]

well, goombah, the original idea was case re-stating what he saw as teaspoon's rational for understanding things

1. The physical senses provide trustworthy information about reality

teaspoon was citing reasons for understanding that reality existed.

my point was that physical senses are not essential for providing trustworthy information about reality. i believe that one can think about ideas without using a physical reference, including physical symbols.

you can't use your senses to demonstrate the difference between "logical" and "illogical," for instance. but i can think through ideas and come to conclusions about reality without leaving the realm of the idea.

here's one

all A is B
all B is C
all A is C

is this argument true or false? you don't have to refer to any physical references to decide. there are two boundaries of separation here, and you can perceive them without your senses. you may want to use a physical example to make it clear to yourself, but the relationships don't require anything to be perceived by your senses.

I would have no way to understand "all" without being exposed to the concept in the physical realm.

what understanding could I have of 'separation' if I'd never seen or heard separate things?I can apply 'separate' to thought because I have already learned the concept of separation through my physical senses.

"separation" is the general condition, and "things determined to be separate through my physical senses" is a special case. you would never have understood how things could be separated by your physical senses if you didn't already have an understanding of what "separate" meant.

I feel that I learned the concept of "separate" and obviously have no recollection of having that knowledge previously.You may be right and it might have been there but I can't make that claim.

we're so used to understanding things in a sensory way that we forget that understanding something is a mental process. we then use the physical references as aids to explain or remember it, but understanding doesn't need the physical.

Explanations are the keys to understanding and require the physical somewhere in the process.
For me anyway.

ever understood something in a dream so clearly that you wopndered how you ever culd have missed it, and then when you wke up after a while you couldn't understand it anymore? your subconscious is processing information at a level so far removed from your daily life that you can't even understand it anymore until you dream again. then it comes right back.

What information would the subconscious be processing? Even in a dream you 'see' what is going on.The other senses come into play in my dreams as well.

[Rob]

kevin your avatar is scary.

[kevin]

it's not mine.

i got it from vynn, who used to be here and has since disappeared.

[kevin]

I would have no way to understand "all" without being exposed to the concept in the physical realm.


I feel that I learned the concept of "separate" and obviously have no recollection of having that knowledge previously.You may be right and it might have been there but I can't make that claim.


Explanations are the keys to understanding and require the physical somewhere in the process.
For me anyway.

well. there you are. i think differently, and don't always relate what i think to physical images or memories.

What information would the subconscious be processing? Even in a dream you 'see' what is going on.The other senses come into play in my dreams as well.

i don't always use my senses to understand what "separate" means. you do.

we perceive things in different ways. in terms of what we understand, you and i don't live in the same world, goombah.

[Goombah]

I would have no way to understand "all" without being exposed to the concept in the physical realm.


I feel that I learned the concept of "separate" and obviously have no recollection of having that knowledge previously.You may be right and it might have been there but I can't make that claim.


Explanations are the keys to understanding and require the physical somewhere in the process.
For me anyway.

well. there you are. i think differently, and don't always relate what i think to physical images or memories.

What information would the subconscious be processing? Even in a dream you 'see' what is going on.The other senses come into play in my dreams as well.

i don't always use my senses to understand what "separate" means. you do.

we perceive things in different ways. in terms of what we understand, you and i don't live in the same world, goombah.

That's true Kev...and I enjoy learning of the different perspectives.
Thank you and Happy New Year!

[Rob]

it's not mine.

i got it from vynn, who used to be here and has since disappeared.

Kevin your avatar is scaring me.

[kevin]

That's true Kev...and I enjoy learning of the different perspectives.
Thank you and Happy New Year!

happy new year to you too

best wishes for a prosperous beginning, middle, and end

[kevin]

Kevin your avatar is scaring me.

could be worse, really

[kevin]

[Rob]