Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason. 3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2). 4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3). 5.
In the words of Inwood, the Stoics believed that: [7] Logic helps a person see what is the case, reason effectively about practical affairs, stand his or her ground amid confusion, differentiate the certain from the probable, and so forth. Chrysippus, who created much of Stoic logic. Aristotle's term logic can be viewed as a logic of ...
Van Til likewise claimed that there are valid arguments to prove that the God of the Bible exists but that the unbeliever would not necessarily be persuaded by them because of his suppression of the truth, and therefore the apologist, he said, must present the truth regardless of whether anyone is actually persuaded by it (Frame notes that the ...
Logical reasoning is a form of thinking that is concerned with arriving at a conclusion in a rigorous way. [1] This happens in the form of inferences by transforming the information present in a set of premises to reach a conclusion.
In this essay, arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that: [2]. Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius).
C. S. Lewis's argument from reason is also a kind of transcendental argument. Most contemporary formulations of a transcendental argument for God have been developed within the framework of Christian presuppositional apologetics and the likes of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. [2]
At the time, much of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church was influenced by Neoplatonic ideas, and Aristotelianism struck many as heretical. [4] [5] Siger and others seem to have conceded this, and to have used the sharp reason/faith distinction that came to be known as "double truth" as a way of legitimizing discussion of Aristotle despite that concession. [6]
It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position. [5]