Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

yazdi · December 14, 2012, 6:28am

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Peace yazdi

As I said earlier … There is nothing logically wrong with a circular argument. Just check it up on Wikipedia. The fact is … I agree with that it cannot be used for arguing a point and hence I am not using circular logic in MY arguments. This does not seem to compute with you at all. A valid argument means that it is rational … Using a circular argument as a proof for something is a fallacy … Because neither the conclusion nor the premise(s) are trusted.

But if you analyse what I said earlier you have to admit it is a sound argument. Let’s repeat it here. Then analyse it.

Muslims believe that our religion is true
We believe that our Lord has given us guidance
We believe that He Knows all things

It follows from these premises that if we are told in our guidance that such and such a question should be avoided then we take it on faith.

now the premises are what are written in red and the conclusion is what is in blue … Just like this argument.

If it can hold an audible conversation with you then it is a human …

However, you can’t suddenly turn my premises into my conclusion and conclusion into my premises … Of course it would be wrong to infer that “if it is a human then it can hold an audible conversation with you” because not all people can “talk” like young babies and mutes.

In order for an argument to be sound it needs to have a true premises and true conclusion.

I already understand that perhaps you don’t personally believe, “our religion is true, The Lord has given us guidance, and He Knows all things”, but since Muslims do believe that (at this moment in time I am not arguing for the validity of why we believe in these to be true, merely the fact that we do), it follows that the blue statement would be consistent for a Muslim to do.

However, I also believe that it is possible to entertain hard questions … And I stated that there are people well versed in mantiq (logic), and many of them are from the ulema … Probably not the sort of alims you are used to yazdi …

So I asked for those questions so we can look at them now and here … We have a process of iterative belief, which others can confuse to be circular … We can look into this subject … Of how belief should be formed by Muslims … It does follow howevwr that if one person does all the hard work and others follow him in his conclusions … As long as he is right then they will be “in the right” too … Hence they do not need to undergo the same exercises that the forerunner has had to go through.

If only you had read my post a bit more carefully. The problem is not only circular reasoning.. but it starts with presupposition of a premise. Rational, critical, logical or meaningful argument can not start with a presupposition. All the answers you will give to my questions (which you are preempting will satisfy you but not me) will start from presupposition. I will term your answers as emotional answers while you will persist that these are logical, rational and philosophical answers.

It’s good that you have come across such clergymen who you think are well versed in logic. I hope they also know the the basic requirement of rationality-critical analysis.. which prohibits you presuppose a premise. As long as we call an apple an apple.. there is no problem.** Faith is related to emotions and is largely presupposed without evidence and reason**. Please tell me the name of those clergymen who will have a rational answer for faith orientation without presupposing..