Logical validity is crucial to an argument. If an argument contains even one logical fallacy, it fails.
But lets say that the argument does not violate the rules of logic. What then?
Does that mean that the argument is going to be convincing to skeptics?
Of course not.
A sound argument is a valid argument that also has true premises.
A sound argument wont just "make sense" but will also have premises that succeed in providing strong
support for the conclusion. Premises that can't be accepted as true, or are demonstrably false, will not, therefore, be convincing to a skeptic.
For example, if a premise for the existence of God is " God is good " a skeptic of God's existence cannot accept the premise as true. It assumes that the God exists.. because only things that exist can be said to be good. Imagined things can only be imagined to be good. Also, the premise has a moral conclusion that a skeptic won't just accept because someone says so.
As a skeptic to the God Hypothesis, I have yet to read an argument for the existence of God that can convince me that all the premises are true, and very many of those arguments also contain logical fallacies.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments