0
What else can I help you with?
What does the teleological argument state?
The teleological argument states that the complexity and order in the universe imply the existence of a designer or higher intelligence. It suggests that the intricate design and purposeful arrangement of the universe's components point towards a creator rather than occurring by chance. This argument is often used to support the existence of a God or intelligent designer.
What is principle of argument?
The principle of argument states that an argument should be based on logic and evidence, rather than emotions or personal attacks. It involves presenting a claim or belief, supporting it with reasons and evidence, and responding to counterarguments in a rational and respectful manner. The goal is to arrive at a clear, sound, and convincing conclusion through reasoned discourse.
Which best states an argument rather than an explanation?
The evidence proves that it is unfair of Odysseus to criticize the Cyclops' way of life. He sneers that they do not hunt, yet the fact is that their food supply is abundant and they do not need to roam.
What is a valid argument?
In my opinion, a valid argument is any argument that opens a dialogue (without anger of course) where the opposing side can see and understand your side and may actually cause doubt as to whether they were right at all.Opposing argument: Arguments begin with a premise or premises and end with a conclusion. Take the argument above, here we have a premise that states a valid argument is one that opens a dialog, qualifying that opening as non emotional, and concludes that by opening with a non emotional argument of non specified nature the opposing side will understand the correctness of this argument and thereby have doubt about its own argument. Of course, since the premise is far too vague to even lead to a conclusion, there is no doubt by the opposition that another definition is required to effectively explain what a valid argument is.In order to have a valid argument, the truth of the conclusion must be a logical consequence of the premise. Take this argument, for example, that has declared the original argument not valid as a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion quite clearly is not a logical consequence of its premise. That would be the premise. Now this argument will lead to a logical conclusion proving that the above argument was not valid. The above argument may be a deductive argument that has, in that contributors opinion, deduced that the conclusion of that argument is a logical consequence of the premise. Or it may be a inductive argument that claims the conclusion is supported by the premises and if a deductive argument the above argument may or may not be valid or may or may not be sound. In this case, the above argument is neither valid nor sound.The only kind of argument that can logically be called a valid argument is one where the the truth of the conclusion is actually a logical consequence of the premise or premises and its corresponding conditional is necessarily true. An argument then, can only be valid if the negation of the corresponding conditional is a contradiction. For example:It is either good or badIt is not goodTherefore it is bad.In its application we can test if an argument is valid or not by translating the premise and conclusion into sentential or predicate logic sentences. Then constructing from these the negation from the corresponding conditional and finally see if from this a contradiction can be obtained. Or a truth table if feasible can be used to test if the premises come out false in every row. This truth table usually relies upon Boolean functions in terms of true or false. Then alternately construct a truth tree to test if all the branches are closed. If successful this proves the validity of the original argument.In attempting to test the original argument we find that argument is lacking in sufficient premises to test it. We could break the premises down to this:In his opinion any argument is a valid argumentAny argument that opens a dialog with out angerAn argument that allows the opposing side to see his argumentThe opposing argument then doubts their own reasoning.Broken down this way, the premises do not lead to a logical conclusion. If any argument is a valid argument then the opposing argument would be valid as well. Let's try breaking it down this way.Any argument is a valid argument that opens a dialogWithout anger, where the opposing side can see that argumentThus, or possibly causing doubt in the opposing arguments reasoning.Of course, if the original premise is true then there is no point in arguing as any opposition by definition is non valid since it did not open the dialog. However, the conclusion is a logical consequence of the original premise. It is the second premise that makes no sense if the original premise is true, because no opening argument need be made in order for an opposing argument to see that it is an opening argument and by definition the only valid argument made. Thus, the premise must original premise must be false, but the second premise is clearly true leaving the conclusion in a state of illogic.The original argument really can not be broken down by any truth table or truth tree. It is merely an opinion offered for lack of a better explanation. In any argument, if the one making the argument assumes the game is to prove the other person wrong, then the game is lost. Arguments should only be used to derive a truth or truths. When this is understood, those making arguments are never wrong. The premise itself may be either true or false but never wrong. May be valid or not, sound or not sound but never wrong. Since the original argument was offered as merely an opinion it is of course, not wrong. It his however, not a valid argument.
Is fallacy make a argument weaker?
A fallacy is an argument that has poor or inappropriate reasoning, which therefore tends to make the argument either invalid or inconclusive. As a result, fallacies are generally weaker than arguments with concrete logic.On the other hand, there are times where writers use intentional fallacies (as a cover argument), in an attempt to highlight the opposite of what the fallacy states, thereby emphasizing their true argument. This may be for comic, satirical, or logical reasons.
What does the teleological argument state?
The teleological argument states that the complexity and order in the universe imply the existence of a designer or higher intelligence. It suggests that the intricate design and purposeful arrangement of the universe's components point towards a creator rather than occurring by chance. This argument is often used to support the existence of a God or intelligent designer.
What is principle of argument?
The principle of argument states that an argument should be based on logic and evidence, rather than emotions or personal attacks. It involves presenting a claim or belief, supporting it with reasons and evidence, and responding to counterarguments in a rational and respectful manner. The goal is to arrive at a clear, sound, and convincing conclusion through reasoned discourse.
What are the Explanation and example of bill of rights section 1 to 20?
The Bill of Rights section one to twenty are a list of the first twenty amendments to the United States Constitution. An amendment explains or adds to the explanation of another law.
How does the cosmological argument work?
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by showing that the universe could not have originated from nothing and must have a cause or explanation. It states that every contingent being has a cause, and since an infinite regress of causes is not possible, there must be a first cause (God) to explain the existence of the universe. It is often associated with philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig.
What was the basic issue in the nullification argument?
states rights
What was the argument of the states that wanted to secede?
The president recieved no electrocal vote from Southern states in the election
What was an argument of states wanted to secede?
The President received no electoral votes from Southern states in the election
Which best states an argument rather than an explanation?
The evidence proves that it is unfair of Odysseus to criticize the Cyclops' way of life. He sneers that they do not hunt, yet the fact is that their food supply is abundant and they do not need to roam.
What is the meaning of the word valid?
valid = based on good reasons or facts that are true: Actually, in logic, a valid argument is one where the premises lead to the conclusion, whether or not the premises (facts it is based on) are true. For example, the argument "All Presidents of the United States have green skin; Lady Gaga is a President of the United States and therefore has green skin" is a valid argument, notwithstanding the facts that US Presidents don't have green skin and Lady Gaga is not a US President.
What was a argument of states that wanted to secede?
The president received no electoral votes from southern states before the election
Write the sentence -x and -x in words In words explain why -x and -x are not equivalent. Provide an example to support your explanation.?
boldYou could do:There are three oceans in the united states!
Write the sentence -x and -x in words In words explain why -x and -x are not equivalent Provide an example to support your explanation?
boldYou could do:There are three oceans in the united states!
