You’re incredulous. I tried to say goodbye in a nice way that showed that I have no hard feelings toward you personally, and I valued some of what you had said because I would be willing to read your recommendations.

You took that opportunity to completely ignore my sentiment and use Realpolitik to justify your rude behavior (even while continuing it).

Stop trying to reignite the conversation; I’m big enough to let you have whatever last word you want because the transcript clearly shows you tried to argue in favor of a logical fallacy and refused to acknowledge your own mistake. Whatever you say beyond that is moot, in all seriousness.

“I do wish you the best in whatever you are doing, I simply hope that you become more adept at handling logic in the future.” Oh how badly I wanted to sign off like this, too, Charlton! How badly I wanted to leave a snide little prick in my otherwise kind regards! But I decided to be a little better than that, more manly, more moral – I decided to leave you with an honest friendly goodbye. You ripped that up and threw it away; I’m really not sure how to leave you. I won’t reply to you again no matter what you respond. You’ve demonstrated incorrigible disrespect to me. Thanks.

I’ll lay aside the fact that your last comment was basically an implicit insult toward my ability to think logically. I would highly recommend you read a little more basic philosophy, particularly in the use of terms and argumentation. I don’t mean this to be an insult, but you don’t seem to be able to grasp arguments as they are given and you are currently engaging in a straw man as a reason not to debate with me. I cannot commend this slip-shod use of logic. I do wish you the best in whatever you are doing, I simply hope that you become more adept at handling logic in the future.

(By the way, WM Craig has given a very good reason for why the burden of proof should be on the agnostic. To simply dismiss him because you don’t like having the weight put on your shoulders demonstrates more about the weakness of your position than it does his argument. If you want to dismiss a philosopher it is better to actually engage his arguments than to attack his conclusion. Attacking the conclusion is a logical fallacy, in case you weren’t aware.)

I’m writing this to quickly address one of your other comments: “How DARE you insult my philosophy professors whom you don’t know?” and “Yet again, you are directly insulting my intelligence rather than address the points I bring to bear.”

I’m sorry, you really are presenting yourself as someone who is incapable of understanding either (or both) logic or normal expression in writing. My statement was, “I’m rather surprised you were taught to disregard the argument without any real thought.” Now one thing immediately jumps out: This statement doesn’t insult your intelligence. It says you were taught to to disregard the ontological argument without giving it thought. If you were actually taught the argument could be dismissed with, “‘Gee wasn’t this silly? What a con man!’” (Your words not mine) then you were taught to dismiss it without thinking. Whether or not you have thought about the argument is irrelevant to what you were taught.

To argue I have insulted you is in fact an insult to logic. Unless you can demonstrate that insulting what someone was taught is an insult to the individual. Your argument is like a child being saying, “How dare you call me an idiot for being taught the thought of Santa Claus is idiotic!” No one insulted you, I only addressed your claim of how little you were taught to respect what is still a debated argument within academic circles. (You even admitted to not realizing the argument was discussed, again illustrating ignorance in the matter. Be aware “ignorance” only indicates a lack of knowledge, not an insult to capacity, ability, or desire.

Now if you want to say I insulted your philosophy professor, again you have made a statement that I did not. I did not insult the man, I predicated my statement with an “if”. Moreover, my shock at how little you were taught would have to be stretched to be indicative of an insult. I’m equally shocked at how little the average student is taught of logic or economics in high school. Does that mean that I am insulting all high school teachers?

However, I will stand by my statement that any philosopher who basically says that Anselm was a “con man” (your words, again) is a poor philosopher. Such a person treats a man who attempted to address a question within his own time and ability with so much sophistication that his argument is still discussed as no more than a huckster. This is neither philosophically correct, nor historically accurate. To insult those whom we disagree with because we do not like their arguments is childish.

So, Jon, are you going to continue saying I insulted your philosophy professor? Or did you poorly articulate how you had been taught to think of the ontological argument? Are you going to continue to say I insulted you, or are you willing to acknowledge that my statement was nothing of the sort?

At this time you are acting like a person who cannot be reasoned with. I can make assumptions as to why that might be, but that would be engaging in ad hominem attacks. You may want to try reading things twice, or illustrate the flow of your logic, if you want to lay charges at my feet again. I have better things to do than engage in argument with someone who is incapable (either by dint of ability or preference) of understanding basic written English.

Agreeing on basic matters of reason is not secondary. You have claimed that a method of knowledge is valid which allows the proof of literally anything. So long as a justification for a proposition can be considered justified by the proposition, any statement is true or false as you choose. Therefore, yes, we’re done.

If I were you I would not have staked my claim on so terrible a plot as defending circular reasoning. That was your choice; discussion of the existence of God with you is therefore pointless. If you had admitted that circular logic is not a means to gain knowledge and then moved back toward the apologetics, I would have not only agreed to move on but I would have gained immense respect for you for recognizing and admitting a mistake. I go through that exercise daily – what I think explains today’s experiment often fails to explain tomorrow’s. This is standard procedure for me, so maybe I’m a bit too harsh in expecting it from others, but there it is.

Anselm’s ontological argument begs the question, which is a formal fallacy. If you are not willing to recognize that reason is the tool by which we learn, then it is simply not possible to have a discussion on any philosophical matter whatsoever. This is not “secondary” but primary. It is the foundation upon which any conversation must be built. You wanted to discuss God. So did I. But you assumed his existence then tried to prove it. When I called you out on this you insulted me. When I called you out on THAT, you went back to the assumption. If you think of yourself as an intellectual, you really should be ashamed.

I sincerely wish you the best in life. Honestly. I hope whatever you’re doing you’re enjoying it and have continued success. I will seriously look up the apologists you’ve listed and read them. I will read them critically but honestly consider their work and thoughts.

I know Pascal better for his work on the Torricelli space. WL Craig has in public stated that he doesn’t understand why the burden of proof is not on the agnostic, so he’s out, sorry. And I know more about biology than Behe (I’m familiar), so I can’t do that one, either. But the others I will look up.

Cheers!

If you want to terminate the discussion based on a point that is at best secondary, then so be it.

As to your argument, “A man is a horse because a horse is a man” such an argument is logically coherent and demonstrates that you either do not know what a man is, or what a horse is, or that you intend something different by the argument than what would normally be meant. (Thus, while coherent, your argument is either false, or you need to clarify it.) A premise that is demonstrably false being used to support another statement that is demonstrably false is a failure in logic, not because the two premises are based off of one another, but because the premise is demonstrably false.

The normal example of a circular argument would be, “That creation is good can be known from the excellence of God as its creator, whose excellence can be known from the goodness of creation.” Such an argument is perfectly coherent, but only those who are willing to agree to the two premises mutually stated will be persuaded from it. The argument is not logically invalid, it is simply not compelling.

You may say, “I don’t find that compelling because I don’t think creation is good.” If I were to say, “but you see, creation is good because of the excellence of God.” Then you might respond that you don’t believe that God is excellent, or that the excellence of God necessitates a good creation. You could even say that I have assumed the excellence of God based on the goodness of nature, which you have disputed, therefore I must prove my point in another way. In other words you can take issue with one of the premises of the argument, and by doing so unravel the whole argument by requiring me to prove that premise by other sources, but simply saying that the argument is illogical is not an argument. (Now if I said, “peanut butter tastes good because God is good” you could argue that the conclusion does not logically follow, and you would have a point. In fact you could criticize this argument as illogical based on multiple points.)

If you want to say that circular argumentation is a logical fallacy, then that is fine. Circular logic is a fallacy in that the only support given to the conclusion is a premise that assumes the conclusion to be true. That does not mean the conclusion is not true, or that the argument is wrong, only that in order to make the argument compelling additional information must be added. Not all fallacies make an argument false.

You are perfectly within your right to say, “Wait this premise assumes the conclusion, I want additional proof of this premise before we allow it.” But, once a premise is proven, if the conclusion is inherent in the premise, and the conclusion necessarily reinforces the premise, then we have a logical loop that is both true and circular. Thus: If I can prove A exists, and then I demonstrate that by necessity A implies B, and that B implies A, and thus B is true and thus A is true then for all future references the logical argument A implies B and B implies A is a valid argument, and it is circular. I’ll acknowledge that this method is not purely circular, but my point is that a circular argument with recognizably true premises is valid, whether or not it is circular.

You want proof that a circular argument can be a means of learning? The only way we can determine this is if we examine a specific circular argument that claims to be a means of learning. I have made no claim that there is such an argument. In fact I said I was willing to let the whole issue drop because I don’t think the ontological argument is circular, nor do I intend to utilize purely circular arguments. (I reserved the right to argue for logical feedback only because I don’t know if such events will arise. It is possible that we might discuss an argument where one of there might be such an instance, where two premises do mutually support one another or the conclusion indicates one of the premises which then leads us back to the conclusion, thus reinforcing it based upon its initial proof.)

If you would like proof that I’m not a lone nut in saying that circular arguments are valid you may look here: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#beg. Note that my argument has only been as to the validity of circular arguments (and only has been an argument of validity) not to the use of such arguments. Validity, soundness, and compulsion are not the same thing.

But I’ll utilize your method of argumentation if it is what you are comfortable with: I refuse to acknowledge any further points you make until you either withdraw your statement that the ontological argument is circular, or you prove it is. Otherwise you have demonstrated that you are not capable of being reasoned with.

(I don’t really care about the ontological argument if you don’t find it compelling. Unless you would find it compelling if it could be proven, I’m not particularly interested in proving it as true. The ontological argument is in fact a secondary issue. But this is the means of argument you have chosen, to stand on secondary issues wherein we might have some logical disagreement. Is it the method which you wish to proceed in?)

Seriously, this is one for the ignorant argument history books. Charlton argues that circular logic (a formal logical fallacy) is an acceptable means to gain knowledge while insulting my philosophy professors for not teaching me better. That alone is mind-boggling. But THEN Chris thinks that me refusing to move on unless he corrects this is an indication that Charlton is actually winning! All I can say is that I take it as quite a comfort that people on your side are the ones arguing in favor of formal logical fallacies and high fiving one another after my side refuses to move on until you address them. If that counts as a victory in your book, by all means take it.

Thanks for your support! I appreciate it although it was unnecessary from my viewpoint. The truth always, always rises to the surface!