[Serious] 'Counterargument - immediate fresh argument'---a forum game.

[Porcupine]

First off, I have decided to label this thread as serious because I really want to make sure that this game is played.

It's a forum game I invented in my head when I woke up just now.

How to play:

First off, I, the OP will lay out some premises and a conclusion. Then, the post below me shall respond to it by saying that they either (a) Accept the argument or they (b) reject at least one of the premises and/or that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. If they don't accept the argument they will then give a brief explanation for why they don't accept a particular premise and/or why they don't think the conclusion follows from the premises. If they agree with the argument then explaining why they agree with it is merely optional and not necessary. But it is necessary to explain why you disagree with an argument.

Arguments should be laid out in a classic modus ponens form such as this:

Premise 1: if X then Y
Premise 2: X
Conclusion: Therefore Y.

What next? What after the argument is responded to? Well, rather than posters going back and forth over the same argument again and again.... the poster doesn't finish their post. A post should contain two things: (1) A response to the  argument in the post above, as outlined above. (2) An immediate fresh argument below.

An exception to this rule, of course, is the OP as I have no argument to respond to so I shall just start with a fresh argument.

I shall start off with something really basic and, very hard to disagree with, just to get things rolling:

Premise 1: If a cat is a mammal then a cat is an animal.
Premise 2: A cat is a mammal.
Conclusion: Therefore, a cat is an animal.

So post #2, below me, should respond to this argument as outlined above (either accept/agree with it (probably what's going to happen here!) or disagree with it and give your reasons) and THEN immediately add a fresh argument. And it just continues on like that.

Finally: Don't worry about ninjas. The goal is to try to respond to the post directly above you. If you try to write out a response to the post above and add a fresh argument but another poster does the same thing at the same time and they also come up with their own response and fresh argument ... then it's no big deal at all. We'd get a  second response to the same argument but we'd also get another fresh argument. So, the game continues on just fine.

So, those are the rules, hence the 'finally'. There are no winners and losers ... it's a 'game' like 'word association' can be thought of as a game. It's just supposed to be something fun and enjoyable.

A final summary of the rules followed by a repeat of the argument to respond to for those who find this to be TL; DR:

Rule 1: Respond to the argument in the post above you with an agreement or a disagreement.
Rule 2: If you disagree then please give your reasons for why you disagree. If you agree then giving your reasons is optional.
Rule 3: After responding to the argument in the post above you then, in that very same post, immediately write your own fresh argument underneath your response.
Rule 4: Make your argument in the simple modus ponens form that simply goes: if X, then Y. X, therefore y. This should work just fine because the argument should just be for any proposition that you have a positive belief in the truth of. (This could be anything from "God exists" to "natural selection is a fact" to "YouTube comments are generally irritating or "moral realism is false". You can literally argue for any proposition that you hold to be true. And it doesn't have to be a proposition you hold with 100% certainty either. Just above 50%).
Rule 5: The OP is the only post on the thread that doesn't give a counter argument below their argument and that's simply because the OP sets the ball rolling.
Rule 6: Don't worry about ninjas. If you ninja somebody or get ninja'd ... then just move on and continue trying to play the game.
Rule 7: It's a game like 'word association' is a game. The purpose is to have fun and enjoy this. There are no winners or losers.

Okay, I'll repeat what I wrote above for those who skipped to the rules part due to TL;DR. Here's, once again, a really basic hard-to-disagree-with argument just to set the ball rolling:


Premise 1: If a cat is a mammal then a cat is an animal.
Premise 2: A cat is a mammal.
Conclusion: Therefore, a cat is an animal.

Now the next post should respond by  following rules 2-4.

Have fun!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Already bored with the idea, but good luck.

Boru

[Duty]

I think this is some strange new usage of the term "game" of which I was not previously aware.

[ignoramus]

Jesus was a man
I am a man
Conclusion: I am Jesus!

Checkmate atheist scumbags



(let's call this game: "break the logic triangle" instead )

[GrandizerII]

Back to the OP, obviously agree with the OP argument.

Next fresh argument, simplified version of modal ontological argument, lol.

If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists.
It is possible for God to exist.
Therefore, God exists.

FTR, I don't hold all premises to be true. Just playing the game.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Back to the OP, obviously agree with the OP argument.

Next fresh argument, simplified version of modal ontological argument, lol.

If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists.
It is possible for God to exist.
Therefore, God exists.

FTR, I don't hold all premises to be true. Just playing the game.

Objection to #2. It is not readily apparent that it is possible for God to exist (rule of non-contradiction).

My turn (an easy one):

All cats are mammals.
Socrates was a mammal.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

Boru

[Porcupine]

[sidenote: That's a good point. You shouldn't have to actually believe the argument. You are welcome to play devil's advocate. Let's make that rule number 8].

If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists.

I reject this premise because the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. Namely, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is actual. It may be possible for God to exist without God being actual.

Okay, my own argument:

Premise 1: If dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism then idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism, and radical emergence).

Premise 2: Dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism.

Conclusion: Therefore, idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism and radical emergence).

EDIT: I got ninja'd but one of the rules is to not worry about ninjas and to just continue so I will not worry. I may as well respond to what's above me so Boru isn't left out.

All cats are mammals.
Socrates was a mammal.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

Boru

The argument is unsound because it's invalid. Both its premises are true but its conclusion doesn't follow from those premises.

Rule 9: Feel free to respond to ninjas so they don't feel left out. But still don't worry about ninjas. You can also feel free to just move on.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[sidenote: That's a good point. You shouldn't have to actually believe the argument. You are welcome to play devil's advocate. Let's make that rule number 8].

If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists.

I reject this premise because the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. Namely, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is actual. It may be possible for God to exist without God being actual.

Okay, my own argument:

Premise 1: If dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism then idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism, and radical emergence).

Premise 2:  Dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism.

Conclusion: Therefore, idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism and radical emergence).

EDIT: I got ninja'd but one of the rules is to not worry about ninjas and to just continue so I will not worry. I may as well respond to what's above me so Boru isn't left out.

All cats are mammals.
Socrates was a mammal.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

Boru

The argument is unsound because it's invalid. Both its premises are true but its conclusion doesn't follow from those premises.

Rule 9: Feel free to respond to ninjas so they don't feel left out. But still don't worry about ninjas. You can also feel free to just move on.

Actually, the conclusion could be true, but that would require a false first premise (‘All mammals are cats’).

Your argument about ideals fails because it doesn’t make the case that idealism is more plausible that the other three, it merely asserts it.

Another one:

If I have three cats, I also have two dogs.
I have three cats.
Therefore, I have two dogs.

Boru

[Porcupine]

Actually, the conclusion could be true

I agree that the conclusion could be true but the argument is still unsound because it's invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises and that is they key issue with the argument.

It's also logically possible for the premises, which seem obvious, to be false. But, nevertheless whether the premises are true or not ... the conclusion doesn't follow whether the conclusion is true or not. Because while not all valid arguments have to be sound all sound arguments do have to at least be valid. Hence, the argument is unsound because it is invalid.

Your argument about ideals fails because it doesn’t make the case that idealism is more plausible that the other three, it merely asserts it.

I agree that the argument fails if by 'fails' you mean that it is a very question-begging because it doesn't really bother to demonstrate anything. However, the conclusion does follow from the premises if the premises is true so if you accept the premises then the conclusion is necessarily true. So the question would still be whether you accept the premises or not. But I take you to be implicitly saying that you either reject both of them or one of them because at least one of them is not demonstrated. So then I would take the approach to just be okay with the unhelpfulness because I'd slowly offer further arguments. The next step for me would be to provide an argument that argues for premise 1. And if you're still unconvinced then I will keep taking s step back until we get into something that is, as it were, more meaty. Eventually you would either accept my argument or we would start to find it impossible to understand each other, or we would end up at a stand-off where we both had highly intuitive fundamental axioms that we accepted that differed from each other and we wouldn't budge from. Even if the axiom itself was one of intense agnosticism or unknowability.

If premise 1 was eventually accepted after many steps back I would then apply the same process to premise 2. That's how I work. It's a slow process but it's how I like to get to the truth. Slow and steady wins the race as long as the race takes place. (Fast and steady may be ideal but it tends to be more difficult to pull off. The more quickly you move the easier it is to crash ... or at least to miss a turn).

So, while my argument fails in and of itself, in isolation, due to question-begging ... it may not fail when used in combination with further arguments that eventually justify its premises.

An interesting thing about the question-begging 'fallacy' is that it's not a formal fallacy. It's an informal fallacy. Why? Because it ultimately involves redundancy and a lack of demonstration, in isolation, but it doesn't actually necessarily make any mistakes of invalidity or unsoundness. One question-begging argument is totally useless. But many question-begging arguments, taken together, if they are formally sound and valid---and if they point, relate and refer to each other---may be able to de-beg each other's questions, as it were.


Anyway, back to the game!

Another one:

If I have three cats, I also have two dogs.
I have three cats.
Therefore, I have two dogs.

Boru

I'd just reject premise 1. Premise 2 may be true but even if you have both three cats and two dogs .... you don't have two dogs because you have three cats. Well, I mean, even if somehow the reason why you decided to buy two dogs was because you bought three cats, got sick of owning only cats, and so you decided to have a dog, but you weren't satisfied with one, so you moved onto two ... even if that were true ... when I say that you don't have two dogs because you have three cats I mean that having two dogs doesn't logically entail necessarily having three cats.

So while I would accept premise 2 depending on whether you have three cats or not ... I wouldn't accept premise 1 even if you have three cats and two dogs because I would reject it on the grounds of the antecedent not necessarily logically entailing the consequent.

The argument is, hence, valid but unsound because premise 1 is false at least due to the illogical relationship between its if-then inference. In other words: premise 1 contains a false inference.

Okay, another argument:

Premise 1: If I am human then I am mortal.
Premise 2: I am mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am human.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That one is true (all humans are mortal) but invalid. In order for it to be valid, you would need to reverse the clauses in Premise 1, because not everything that is mortal is human.

Alternately, you could switch Premise 2 and the conclusion to make it both true AND valid.

Boru