Originally posted by vistesd Nevertheless, unless a link can be demonstrated between meat-eating and ignorance, the argument still seems unsound (false), even if valid.
Dasa will not be able to provide us with an objective and conventional definition of "ignorance" that makes his assertions "true" for anyone who does not share his belief system. The fact that he chooses to believe that people who eat meat are "ignorant" is totally irrelevant to people who do not recognize the Vedas as a spiritual authority. His 'argument' is simply an assertion based on two assertions that he asserts constitute "truth".
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
03 Dec '11 09:391 edit
Originally posted by vistesd Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fall ut trying to prove what is "not self-evident" by means of itself is clearer.
Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Perhaps just a nit-picking point, but is circular reasoning strictly speaking a formal logical fallacy? Circular reasoning basically occurs when someone asserts P, therefore P. This is not a fallacy at all but a basic axiom of formal logic. It is obviously not a formal logical fallacy because in fact it is trivially true.
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
No. This is an inductive fallacy, an informal logical fallacy: Politicians run for office and are untrustworthy; therefore, anyone who runs for any public office is untrustworthy. This is not circular reasoning at all.
The wikipedia article is seriously flawed.
If premise (1) were “all y are x”, then I think the inference would be fallacious (affirming the consequent). As it stands, I think [b]Dasa’s argument is valid (though unsound).
Originally posted by Conrau K [b]Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Perhaps just a nit-picking point, but is circular reasoning strictly speaking a formal logical fallacy? Circular reasoning basically occurs when so ...[text shortened]... ds, I think Dasa’s argument is valid (though unsound).
Yes, spot on in my opinion.[/b]
I didn’t think circular reasoning is the same as a tautology. An example, I think, is: “Why do you think the Bible is true?” “Because it’s the word of God.” “How do you know it’s the word of God?” “Because it says so.” …
Originally posted by FMF The "essence of the post" you made was a textbook circular argument. Do you know what a circular argument is, Dasa? Yes or no?
Take in the essence of the post and stop playing mind games - and wasting everyone's time.
There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.
Originally posted by Dasa It is almost impossible for someone taking to the Vedic teachings to achieve love of God in one life time.
That's really too bad, because that's all you get. Telling your brothers you need more than one life to love God just keeps them from God. Congrats. I guess your mission is accomplished.
On the other hand, Christians get there immediately.
What does this tell you about your false religion?
Originally posted by Dasa Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.
No.
The "mind game realm" was entered when you started posting here.
Originally posted by Suzianne That's really too bad, because that's all you get. Telling your brothers you need more than one life to love God just keeps them from God. Congrats. I guess your mission is accomplished.
On the other hand, Christians get there immediately.
What does this tell you about your false religion?
Reincarnation allows the person to become pure.
No one can become pure in one life time.
When the person is pure and not before -they may enter into the Kingdom of God.
Meat eaters will not enter the Kingdom of God.
When they give up the killing and become pure they may be with God.
Animal killing is evidence of ignorance and impurity.
Originally posted by Dasa Reincarnation allows the person to become pure.
No one can become pure in one life time.
When the person is pure and not before -they may enter into the Kingdom of God.
Meat eaters will not enter the Kingdom of God.
When they give up the killing and become pure they may be with God.
Animal killing is evidence of ignorance and impurity.
An honest child can understand this.
May God have mercy on your ignorance.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
03 Dec '11 22:45
Originally posted by vistesd I didn’t think circular reasoning is the same as a tautology. An example, I think, is: “Why do you think the Bible is true?” “Because it’s the word of God.” “How do you know it’s the word of God?” “Because it says so.” …
But maybe I’m confusing things now.
Circular reasoning is a kind of tautology. The example you just described would be an example of circular reasoning.
Originally posted by rwingett It's not the Christians I'm worried about. They're just as stupid as they've always been. The problem is the atheists. The caliber of the atheist posters has plummeted in recent years. With a few exceptions, they're sounding almost as stupid as the Christians these days.
Originally posted by vistesd Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fall ...[text shortened]... ut trying to prove what is "not self-evident" by means of itself is clearer.
I think from this you are saying that Dasa's logic doesn't fall under any
type of logic whatsoever. If that is the correct understanding I will go
along with that.
Originally posted by Dasa There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
Can you provide us with an objective and conventional definition of "ignorance" that makes your assertions about meat eating "true" for anyone who does not share your belief system?
How is the fact that you choose to believe that people who eat meat are "ignorant" relevant in any way whatsoever to people who do not recognize the Vedas as a spiritual authority?
Originally posted by Dasa Take in the essence of the post and stop playing mind games - and wasting everyone's time.
There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.
Do you want to convince anyone other than you that your position is correct?
Spirituality Forum is dead
03 Dec '11 07:59
Back to Top