Featured Member Comment
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
Stupid driver or attempted murder? - “he was probably trying to run over that obnoxious squawking bird he seemed to have pinned down” read more by rottenseed
jmzero
Member Profile
Member Since: 2006-11-08
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
1
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by jmzeroNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (1)
- sifted videos (4)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 394
Rating: 4 star points
Votes Received: 210
Votes Cast: 178
Comments Posted: 84 • browse
Sifted Videos: 4
Profile Views: 1865
Rating: 4 star points
Votes Received: 210
Votes Cast: 178
Comments Posted: 84 • browse
Sifted Videos: 4
Profile Views: 1865
Member's Highest Rated Videos
thanks
Qruel
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Hi qruel;
It's certainly possible I misunderstood your argument - but here's how I saw things. The argument from the video was something like this:
1. Butterflies are so cool.
2. Only an omnipotent God could create something so cool.
3. Therefore, (our Christian) God exists.
Your response was "this begs the question of 'which God'". I think this is a valid response, as you've identified the way that "God" goes from a general "being who creates things" to a specific "God". This is the fallacy of equivocation.
In order to "beg the question" in the sense of the named logical fallacy, you have to assume the conclusion you're trying to put forward. If you read the argument as:
1. Butterflies are all around.
2. God made butterflies.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I don't think this is a fair reading, but if that's what you see then that is indeed circular - because nobody is going to accept premise 2 without already accepting the conclusion. But note that while this argument "begs the question" that doesn't mean it begs for some particular question to be asked (such as your "which God" as before, though - again - that question brings up a good point). That seemed to be the sense in which you used the term "begs the question" - but, again, I may just have misunderstood.
It's certainly possible I misunderstood your argument - but here's how I saw things. The argument from the video was something like this:
1. Butterflies are so cool.
2. Only an omnipotent God could create something so cool.
3. Therefore, (our Christian) God exists.
Your response was "this begs the question of 'which God'". I think this is a valid response, as you've identified the way that "God" goes from a general "being who creates things" to a specific "God". This is the fallacy of equivocation.
In order to "beg the question" in the sense of the named logical fallacy, you have to assume the conclusion you're trying to put forward. If you read the argument as:
1. Butterflies are all around.
2. God made butterflies.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I don't think this is a fair reading, but if that's what you see then that is indeed circular - because nobody is going to accept premise 2 without already accepting the conclusion. But note that while this argument "begs the question" that doesn't mean it begs for some particular question to be asked (such as your "which God" as before, though - again - that question brings up a good point). That seemed to be the sense in which you used the term "begs the question" - but, again, I may just have misunderstood.
Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Normally I wouldn't criticize someone for using "begs the question" to mean "brings up the question" or "prompts the question to be asked". I accept that people have taken to using it that way, even if it makes no sense to me.
However, there's a certain irony to misusing a phrase while in the same post linking to a page with the proper definition (ie. the one having to do with a circular argument).