Are sound arguments always valid because the conclusion is reached from the premises?

Question

Will the reader be more likely to be convinced of your position when the information they are given is accurate and leads to a logical conclusion? Are sound arguments always valid because the conclusion is reached from the premises?

Answer 1

Not always.

At times people manage to convince themselves of some pretty unbelievable things.

Like the idea of a judgmental God. How unlikely is that ?

Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

Let's define some terms.

A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows the premises or statements preceding it.

A sound argument is one where the conclusion logically follows the premises.

Let us define what is the difference is between a statement and a premise.

A premise, by definition, is a statement that most reasonable person would agree is true.

This is an example of a premise; "The computer has made a significant impact on our lives".

This is an example of a statement, not a premise; "The Bible is the whole, complete, non-errant word of God". People may not believe in God or the Bible, and still be reasonable, thinking persons.

The best arguments to be made, at least logically, would be sound arguments.

Hope this helps!

Rob

Answer 3

Don H answered pretty good and he is the best answerer. But God by his nature is Holy, just righteous etc. So by His nature we stand judged by our own shortcomings.

But back to your question. Look no matter what position, premise you have the conclusion will be different. Anyone can make the most logical of all arguements (according to the premise they have in life) and still be wrong to someone else. That is intrinsic in answering topics like this in this kind of forum.

I never get the best answer, even though I gave the best one I could. It's because the poster's mindset was somewhere else and the respondent that answered the closest to where he was at got the best answer.

In most of them, I'm still lost. But to me I'm not. Have a good chuckle of the day. Later gator.

Answer 4

A 'logical conclusion' is usually the notion for persuasion its self. Sound arguments are valid arguments, but does every reasoner exclude data not found in the premises given? Not all.


Further reading: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/ol_logic.htm#69

I. The antinomy of the Finitude or Infinitude of the world in regard to Space and Time.
(1) The antinomy in respect to Time.

(a) THESIS: The world has a beginning in Time.

71. Proof: Let one assume that the world has no beginning in respect to time; then, up to any given point of time, an eternity has elapsed, and consequently an infinite series of successive conditions of things in the world. The infinitude of a series consists, however, in this, that it can never be completed by successive synthesis; therefore an infinite series of conditions in the world is impossible; hence a beginning of the same in time is necessitated.

(b) ANTITHESIS: The world has no beginning in time, and is infinite in respect to time.

72. Proof: Let one suppose that it had a beginning, then there would be assumed an empty time before that beginnings time in which the world was not. In an empty time, however, nothing can originate, for in it there is no condition for existence, since one Being always has another as its condition, i.e. is limited by finite Being only. Therefore the world can have no beginning, but every determinate Being presupposes another, and so on ad infinitum.

73. The proof of this antinomy, when reduced to a brief form, becomes the following direct antithesis:
(1) The world is finite in respect to time; i.e. it has a limit. In the proof of the thesis such a limit is assumed, namely, the Now, or some one given point of time.
(2) Determinate Being has a limit, not in determinate non-Being, in empty time, but only in a determinate Being. The self-limiting somewhats are also positively related to each other, and the one has the same determination as the other. Since, therefore, each determinate Being is limited, or each is a finite one, i.e. such a one as must be transcended ["passed beyond” in the act of defining it], it follows that the “Progress into infinity” is posited.

74. The true solution of this antinomy is this: Neither is the mentioned limit something true for itself, nor is the Infinite spoken of, a true somewhat for-itself; for the limit is of such a kind that it must be transcended, and the Infinite spoken of is merely that to which the limit continually arises. The true infinitude is the REFLECTION-INTO-ITSELF, and Reason contemplates not the temporal world, but the world its essence and idea.

Answer 5

Well, probably not.

I probably could take two sides of a particular argument, one after another. I could come up with facts and insights that are true, and lead you to conclusions that are in theory valid ... yet are completely opposite of each other.

You can't win such a discussion without presenting good arguments and information, but you can "lose" a discussion.

Answer 6

I choose it have been so uncomplicated as you're saying; and that i incredibly savour your question. As a former electric powered engineer, I admire your choose for evidence and objectivity. I do attempt to cope with those whose sole objection to Christianity is doubt approximately its reasonableness. the explanation why i would be unable to consistently achieve this is that there are the two theists and non-theists who're scornful of the opposing place. a question insisting upon evidence is rarely dispassionate, and scorn is suitable met with kindness. the place there will be unable to be a dispassionate communicate of the subject concerns, you may nonetheless love; and for this reason I, and a great form of of my brethren, oftentimes attraction to the middle extremely than the top. we in many situations won't be able to talk to the latter earlier addressing the former. it is not insanity to do the comparable difficulty lower back and lower back lower back anticipating different outcomes (nor did Einstein assume to be taken actually at this component, with the aid of the way). In time, water can positioned on down stone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, i'm not excusing those of my fellow Christians who with an incredibly little awareness attempt to defeat their own own strawmen. i'm basically announcing that a repeated attraction to the emotional isn't consistently lost.