The Best Arguments of All Time: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Best Arguments of All Time » The Best Arguments of All Time

The Best Arguments of All Time
Give us your best arguments

Page: 1 2 3

The Best Arguments of All Time

ChrisR
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/12/08 - 03:46 PM:	#51
I have a few - some of which may break the rules - but, this is all in good fun. One- Moores argument (or something like it). 1. I am standing here now. 2. If I am standing here now, then I am not a brain in a vat (or, the skeptical hypothesis is false). C. I am not a brain in a vat Two- Skeptical argument. 1.If I don't know that I am not a brain in a vat, then I don't know I am standing here. 2. I don't know that I am not a brain in a vat. C. I don't know that I am standing here. Three- An ontological argument. 1. If mereological essentialism is true, then composition does not occur. 2. Composition occurs. C. Mereological essentialism is false. Four- Argument for the Existence of God via reference. 1. When I utter 'God' either I refer to God or I do not. 2. If I do, then God exists. 3. If I do not, then either I refer to my idea of God or everyone's idea of God. 4. If I refer to my idea of God, then God is an idea in the mind. 5. If I refer to everyone's idea of God, then God is an idea in the mind. IC. God is an idea in the mind. 7. If God is an idea in the mind, the God is mind-dependent. IC'. God is mind-dependent. 9. I only perceive ideas. [or 'irrealism is true,' or 'realism is false'.] 10. I perceive ordinary objects. IC''. Idea's are Ordinary objects. 12. God is an object. C. God exists. Five- A Cartesian Argument 1. I conceive of myself existing while no physical things exist. 2. If I can conceive that 'p', then 'p' is possible IC. It is possible for me to exist while no physical things exists. 4. If physicalism is true, then I cannot exist unless physical things exists. C. Physicalism is false. Six. An Argument for nonphysical thoughts. 1. All physical events necessarily have causal powers. 2. My thought that 's' does not necessarily have causal powers. C. My thought that 's' is not a physical event. Seven. Freewill Dilemma, note: compatibilisim is still a form of determinism, yet, they (compatibilists) reject the view that determinism implies no free-will. 1. Either determinism is true or indeterminism is true. 2. If determinism is true, then I don't have free will 3. If indeterminism is true, then I don't have free will C. I don't have free will. for fun we could add: 4. If I don't freely choose my actions, then I cannot be morally responsible for them. C. I am not morally responsible for my actions. Eight: The 'gist' of the Cosmological Argument 1. If I exist, then a necessary being exists. 2. I exist. C. A necessary being exists. Nine: 1. If '1+1=2' is true, then '1' must exist ..... 2. If '1' exists, then nonphysical things exists. 3. Nonphysical things don't exist. 4. '1' does not exist. C. '1+1=2' is false. Note: I do not really endorse all of these arguments - if an explination is needed for any of them, just say so, as I don't wan't the post to be very long. Hope you enjoyed!

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/14/08 - 01:53 AM:	#52
This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect 5. I can think rationally. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Edited by Corit Demus on 05/14/08 - 02:30 AM

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1342

Posted 05/14/08 - 02:36 AM:	#53
Mereological essentialism is false? You mean the weather might not have been the weather? Oh, mereo... not meteoro... ..logical. Still, I wonder whether composition occurs. Maybe parts are still just parts however you put them together. It's a depressing thought, but it's possibly true. **** If I can't know that I'm standing here, then I can't know anything. If I can't know anything, then I don't know what a brain is. Or a vat. Edited by Cuthbert on 05/14/08 - 02:43 AM

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/14/08 - 09:06 AM:	#54
Ok so nobody responded to my previous post, maybe it wasn't right for this forum. However I thought i would post this argument. p1. Everything exists. p2. Nothing does not exist. p3. Nothing is a negative. p4. Nothing balances everything. c. The existence of the negative aspects of our society is not necessary to have a balanced healthy society. You can have a balanced diet that consists of positive and negative things, however you do not need to have the negative things to have a balance. Therfore there is both heathy and unhealthy balance. Criticisim and new ideas welcome.

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 154

Posted 05/15/08 - 12:39 PM:	#55
Silverback, I don't understand your argument. How can nothing balance everything? Nothing is not a thing. You can't apply predicates to nothing. I don't see how the conclusion follows either.

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/15/08 - 02:46 PM:	#56
By not existing nothing gives everything all the space it needs to exist infinitly. Perfect roommates.

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/15/08 - 10:17 PM:	#57
Your conclusion does not follow rationally. I'm still wondering whether my argument can actually hold.

mark71
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/18/08 - 10:58 PM:	#58
yes but you cannot prove there is nothing...as nothing does not exist wfafd
http://24isaiah.net/Lord-Will-Destroy-America.htm

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/19/08 - 06:04 AM:	#59
Lol you just proved it yourself.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/19/08 - 05:45 PM:	#60
coolazice wrote: Aren't there some philosophical arguments, any arguments, which we can pretty reliably apply to reality, in other words, stuff that's just true no matter how you look at it? So basically you are asking whether or not there exists an argument that is impossible to be sceptical of? Literally impossible? The downfall of fallabilism approaches at last... This notion of 'just true' sends shivers down my nihilistic spine. What the hell does 'just true' mean?
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/19/08 - 05:59 PM:	#61
Corit Demus wrote: This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. Since when is existence defined by thought? Rocks don't think but most people would agree they probably exist. Also, prove you 'think'. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. If number 1 is the ONLY thing you know for certain, then you do not know #2 for certain (since #2 is not #1), and since you do not know #2 for certain you don't necessarily even know #1 for certain. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. How can you be so sure your thoughts exist? Just because you are 'experiencing them'? I experience things that don't exist (assumingly don't exist) when I dream. Perhaps thought itself is merely a complex hallucination that isn't real. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. How do you know those are the only two options? 'Might or might not'? 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. It might be senseless either way 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect Matter is an awefully relative term. 5. I can think rationally. Not necessesarily. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. Unless you elimnate 6 as a possibility, your conclusion is assumed. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Your conclusion is assumed.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:01 PM:	#62
Since when is existence defined by thought? Rocks don't think but most people would agree they probably exist. Also, prove you 'think'. 1. If some has a property, it exist (Instantiation principle). 2. I/it is thinking (whatever that may be). C. I/it exists (in whatever way). If number 1 is the ONLY thing you know for certain, then you do not know #2 for certain (since #2 is not #1), and since you do not know #2 for certain you don't necessarily even know #1 for certain. Let me rephrase: I can never know whether anything really exists, except #1. How can you be so sure your thoughts exist? Just because you are 'experiencing them'? I experience things that don't exist (assumingly don't exist) when I dream. Perhaps thought itself is merely a complex hallucination that isn't real. The fact that you are experiencing them means there must be something doing the observing. I'm calling those my thoughts. How do you know those are the only two options? 'Might or might not'? Again let me first rephrase: I can not know whether I can reason rationally correct now (for the length of the argument), I might or I might not. Then, the validity of the first part of the sentence if binary (i.e. only two options), true or false. I agree this cuts down the conclusion somewhat :/ Matter is an awefully relative term. As in make a difference. For the rest let me just say: I was trying to prove that you can always assume you can reason correctly in an argument, because if you couldn't, they argument would be senseless (thus making the fact the fact that you incorrectly assumed you were rational not matter). I don't know how I would need to put it though . Edited by Corit Demus on 05/19/08 - 11:06 PM

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1342

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:29 PM:	#63
If it were the case that all our reasoning is mistaken, then we could not suppose it to be the case. If we could never reason, then we could not understand what reasoning is. So the supposition that we cannot reason would be beyond our powers of reasoning, which ex hypothesi do not exist. So to say 'All our reasoning is mistaken' is self-defeating. But it's always possible that some particular parts of our reasoning are at fault and we may collectively fail to identify some of those faulty parts. For example, the argument of the last paragraph - or of this one - might be invalid. I don't think we can assume that we can always reason correctly. In fact, it seems that sometimes we can't and that we will occasionally fail to see the faults in our own reasoning on occasion. We aren't infallibly rational, but it doesn't seem possible to suppose that we are universally irrational.

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 154

Posted 05/20/08 - 01:15 AM:	#64
Corit Demus wrote: This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect 5. I can think rationally. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Your 5th premise and your conclusion are the same statement.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1342

Posted 05/20/08 - 02:00 AM:	#65
I think it's intended to be a modus tollens but it's not laid it out too clearly: If I can't think rationally, then this argument is senseless This argument is not senseless So I can think rationally I thought it was question-begging, but I don't think so now - just a layout issue.

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/20/08 - 07:48 AM:	#66
how about this... --if humans need to teach the names and attributes of things to their young, then they must of had previous information to know this knowledge in the first place. Knowledge is passed on, but also created. Each generation add a bit to the knowledge and passes it on. --if we go back far enough, who/what taught humans the name and attributes of things. Going back, the knowledge shrinks and can be traced back to 'zero'. --the creator of man taught man to teach man As shown, premises are false, and even if they were correct, this does not follow logically from the premises. One might just as well have put 'a pink dinosaur told them'. http://islamexplained.blogspot.com/ Spam/Advertising.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Exeter University
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 896

Posted 05/20/08 - 09:23 AM:	#67
SIR2U wrote: P1: Everything that exists is definable(even if we do not know of its existence now, it will be when we discover it) P2: God is definable. (look in any dictionary) C: Therefore, God does exist. JAC wrote: You have affirmed the consequent. That is illogical. You said: P1: If X, then Y P2: Y C: Therefore, X I don't really see how. Could you explain where I put the if/then. P1: Men are awesome. P2: Sarah and Kayleigh are awesome. C: Therefore, Sarah and Kayleigh are men. Edit: I didn't notice that this thread has gone onto a second and third page.
I both love and hate language with a passion.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/20/08 - 03:47 PM:	#68
Yahadreas wrote: P1: Men are awesome. P2: Sarah and Kayleigh are awesome. C: Therefore, Sarah and Kayleigh are men. Edit: I didn't notice that this thread has gone onto a second and third page. In order to conclude that Sarah and Kayleigh are men, you would have to restate P1 to read "ONLY men are awesome".
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

bittersteel
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/05/08 - 05:50 AM:	#69
LOL Bronze, I'd like to see you convince a rock that it exists. As for I think, Therefore I am, it has a slightly deeper meaning and a few assumptions... When Descartes says "I", he means Consciousness. In his sense you exsist in YOUR OWN perspective when you're conscious. A lack of consciousness does ofcourse not mean you dont physically exist. But you are'nt CONSCIOUS of your existence when you're UNconscious, are you? Does a tree that falls make a sound when no one there to hear it - It produces vibrations, but sound is the action of these waves on the human ear, the absence of which in the above situation declares that a sound may not be made without anyone around to hear it. When you're conscious, you 'exist' in your perspective. When you're conscious, you can perceive and cognize. When you're unconscious you cant. When you're unconscious, you are not aware(?) of the things around you hence you mind bceomes a closed orb that is cut off from the rest of the world. In the statement, "AM" refers to being a part of the world through sensory interpretation; In this context, thats what existence means EXISTENCE does not merely mean physical existence. If that's the case all matter has been existing since the beginning of time in some form or the other; the very elementary particles that make up your body were once probably the part of a Red Giant or a nebula a few billion years back, and probably the pelvic region of a T-rex in the late cretaceous. So you THINK therefore you ARE...when you DON'T think you are NOT...as far as YOU (or for that matter - I) are concerned. Edited by bittersteel on 06/06/08 - 08:51 AM. Reason: Spelling and Grammar

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.