Peter 3:15 . Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for t
Logic refers to the rules of good thinking. Although the field can be very complex, this website is meant to be simple, but it still will require some experience to be good at it. This website is intended to evaluate evidence for the existence of God and give examples of opposing beliefs. Logical fallacies are arguments that may sound reasonable but contain errors in reasoning.
You will not understand good thinking unless you know the meaning of arguments, premises, conclusions, and logical fallacies. Premises are statements or pieces of information. In evaluating a good argument, it is necessary to determine if the premises are valid or invalid. Notice I am saying valid or invalid, but I'm not saying the premises are 100% correct; they are considered valid if they are more plausible than their denial or detractors. Not many things in life are absolutely certain. Absolute truth is possible in mathematics and some basic philosophy, but not science. For example, we think we understand time, but you cannot get everyone to agree on the A or B theory of time; there is no proof.
The Socrates argument above is used here since it is simple and often used as an example. In a good deductive argument, the premises are valid, and the conclusion is inferred. Notice. The argument is sound since the premises are valid, and a conclusion is inferred. Notice again, I do not say it is absolute proof that Socrates was mortal. However, if the premises are valid and the conclusion is inferred, the conclusion cannot be wrong.
The form of Socrates's argument is referred to as a syllogism, meaning there are two premises and one conclusion. The premises are more likely true than not, and the conclusion is inferred.
The argument above is deductive. Another type of argument is inductive. Deductive arguments work from general statements to specific statements. Inductive arguments begin with specific statements or observations and end with a general conclusion. Science is based on inductive reasoning.
A logical fallacy is an argument with an error in reasoning. The fallacy can be intentional or just a mistake. When arguments for the existence of God appear on the Internet, numerous other sites will claim that the arguments are not sound. Everyone needs to be able to evaluate arguments for their soundness. I will give some examples of opposing fallacies and the mistakes they contain.
Site Content
Argument map
Arguments can also be expressed in a map-like form. It helps support premises or lists possible objections to the argument. For example, on the right side of the map, there is an objection to the second premise.
Before considering the premises' validity, we must look at the conclusion; "Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Do the premises infer the conclusion? If the premises are true, we can say they infer or lead to the conclusion. Now we need to look at the premises.
Are the premises true? Premise 1 is based on intuition. Intuition is knowledge obtained from everyday experiences and is an acceptable method of gaining knowledge. For example, "Biological evidence shows that human organisms die." True, I guess it could be wrong, and I'll be open to a better premise. Be on the lookout for a man who looks about 2,500 years old, wearing a sheet and sandals, doesn't take baths, and doesn't change clothes.
Does it prove without any doubt: not really, but I can't think of anything more plausible. It is more plausible than saying the opposite, which is that some men are immortal. Of course it is!
Just about everyone agrees with premise 2. A possible problem is whether or not Socrates lived. After all, he lived 2,500 years ago, and he never put anything in writing. The statement on the right side of the map is a detractor or an objection to the premise; the evidence is based on his students and others who wrote about him. Per the argument map, he could be a mythological character. The evidence for his life is much greater than he never lived. Do I have absolute proof; no, it is more plausible than he never existed.
So the form is correct, the premises infer the conclusion, and they are more plausible than their denial. ,
Site Content
Inductive arguments are what science is based on.
This diagram compares a deductive argument form with an inductive one.
Note the diagram of an inductive argument. Instead of the premises being valid or invalid, the premises are either strong or weak.
Inductive arguments start with specific information and follow with more generalized information. The premises are either strong or weak and support the conclusion. Finally, the premises support the conclusion and are either cogent or uncogent. In this type of argument, even though the premises are strong and the conclusion is inferred, it is not absolute. In science, there can be a lot of evidence to support a conclusion, but it is not considered absolute proof. Science continues to collect evidence to support their theories. Please remember the inductive argument is the backbone of science.
