Spirituality
03 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere may be bias, but given that the group starts out with differing opinions the biases work both ways. Obviously it helps to have people with reasonable intelligence and the ability to spot bad arguments.
So the group that agrees which arguments have merit do so with no bias on their part?
If you are willing to put in the work, all arguments can be analysed for their validity. There is a whole branch of study for learning how to do this effectively and learning many of the pitfalls etc. It is not just a matter of opinion as you seem to be implying.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo if it is not a matter of opinion is there a universal standard of what equates a bad argument?
There may be bias, but given that the group starts out with differing opinions the biases work both ways. Obviously it helps to have people with reasonable intelligence and the ability to spot bad arguments.
If you are willing to put in the work, all arguments can be analysed for their validity. There is a whole branch of study for learning how to do ...[text shortened]... earning many of the pitfalls etc. It is not just a matter of opinion as you seem to be implying.
How about a good argument that is meant to support a lie?
Also is there a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument?
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes.
So if it is not a matter of opinion is there a universal standard of what equates a bad argument?
How about a good argument that is meant to support a lie?
It doesn't matter what it is meant to support. If it is good its good if its bad its bad.
Also is there a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument?
Yes.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt depends what you require of an argument to call it good. An argument might be valid, meaning its conclusions follow from its premises, and be regarded as good on those grounds. Alternatively one might require that the premises be true as well, in which case the argument is sound. So a good, in the sense of valid, argument, based on false premises would support a lie, but if one requires of a good argument that it is sound it would not. A third possibility is that one might look at how the argument was delivered and judge it as a piece of rhetoric where the logical structure takes a back seat to how convincing the delivery is. So what do you expect of a good argument?
So if it is not a matter of opinion is there a universal standard of what equates a bad argument?
How about a good argument that is meant to support a lie?
Also is there a universal standard for measuring the validity of an argument?
It depends on what you mean by a "universal standard for assessing the validity of an argument". There are the deductive rules of classical logic, but intuitionists reject the "double negative rule" (not not A therefore A) and there are other forms of logic. So one would expect the argument to follow some set of rules of deduction.
09 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat if two people disagree on whether the premises are true? How would you know which person is right?
It depends what you require of an argument to call it good. An argument might be valid, meaning its conclusions follow from its premises, and be regarded as good on those grounds. Alternatively one might require that the premises be true as well, in which case the argument is sound. So a good, in the sense of valid, argument, based on false premises w ...[text shortened]... ther forms of logic. So one would expect the argument to follow some set of rules of deduction.
09 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThat is a completely separate discussion from the question of the validity of the argument. Obviously, if you disagree about premises, you have to look at the justification for the premises. Is there evidence or argument to justify those premises.
What if two people disagree on whether the premises are true? How would you know which person is right?
09 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point you seem to miss is that people can disagree on what constitutes evidence.
That is a completely separate discussion from the question of the validity of the argument. Obviously, if you disagree about premises, you have to look at the justification for the premises. Is there evidence or argument to justify those premises.
09 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIn what way did anything I said give you the impression that I am missing that point?
The point you seem to miss is that people can disagree on what constitutes evidence.
The point you seem to miss is that almost all such disagreements can be resolved fairly easily if both parties are honest. If one or more parties are dishonest, there can be no easy resolution.
You for example rarely actually make an argument or state what you mean but instead resort to repeated often rather meaningless questions whilst ignoring the answers given. You are dishonest. It is not that you disagree with me on what constitutes evidence, its that you don't like where the evidence leads.
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneThey are two sides of the same coin, surely, especially in a community populated by a mixture of believers and non-believers.
You know, the thread title is "Justification of belief".
All I've seen here for pages and pages now (in fact, most of this thread) is justification of non-belief.
Just sayin'.
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOne argument I've seen tried on this site before is an appeal to the necessity of prior cause. The claim is that any event must have a cause or it would not have happened. Then one can either argue that the universe cannot be infinitely old because it would then take an infinite amount of time to get to now and so now would never have happened so the universe must have been created or just accept the Big Bang theory. So the moment of creation is an event and since events must have causes there must necessarily be a cause. God fills the explanatory gap.
[b]Fine. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).
Such as?
In other words, if people have reasons to believe in God other than a desire for or belief ...[text shortened]... now what the other reasons are, how would he recognise them to be correct if I gave them to him?
I don't think the argument is massively convincing, there are a couple of problems. The first one is that it seems to put the problem back a step without really resolving it - one has to invent a reason why God does not need a prior cause which doesn't apply to the universe. The second is that the principle of sufficient cause seems to be contradicted by our understanding of physics - quantum fluctuations do not appear to have a cause as such, they just happen. Further, physical laws are restrictive, they prevent things from happening and are a property of the universe so until the universe came into existence there is no reason to believe there were any laws of physics and so no restrictions on what could happen. However, it's still a far better argument than "God is necessary for morality".
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI disagree. Its flaws are so significant that it can't reasonably be called a 'better' argument than any other argument. A bad argument is a bad argument. It is not a weak argument.
However, it's still a far better argument than "God is necessary for morality".
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd what you view to be a bad argument may actually be a good argument that convinces someone else.
I disagree. Its flaws are so significant that it can't reasonably be called a 'better' argument than any other argument. A bad argument is a bad argument. It is not a weak argument.
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneThe rejection of something is a positive step just as much as excepting something, both
You know, the thread title is "Justification of belief".
All I've seen here for pages and pages now (in fact, most of this thread) is justification of non-belief.
Just sayin'.
require a view point on the topic whatever that topic happens to be.
11 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkQuite so. I can be mistaken. However, if two people discuss such arguments honestly they can come to agreement on which are good arguments and which are bad ones. There are rigorous methods for doing so. It is not just a matter of opinion.
And what you view to be a bad argument may actually be a good argument that convinces someone else.
Such resolution only fails when one of the parties is dishonest or stupid.