Q&A: The Emptiness of the Analytic
The Emptiness of the Analytic
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently I reread the book "Truth and Not Stable" and also listened to you in the debate against Aviv Franco, and a question came up for me regarding what the Rabbi calls "the emptiness of the analytic." From what I understood, a valid logical argument cannot lead to the discovery of a new conclusion unless it is already implicit in one of its premises (begging the question), or else it is not a valid logical argument.
On the other hand, the Rabbi spoke about the principle of causality as a logical principle and used it to defend the plausibility of the existence of the Master of the Universe. How is that not considered falling into a logical fallacy? After all, on the one hand it is a logical argument, but on the other hand you are indeed making a factual claim about the world. I would be happy for an explanation, and as usual thank you very much for your content and your thought.
Answer
Just one correction: begging the question is not a fallacy.
Discussion on Answer
That is the situation with every logical argument. I have explained this in several places. The argument is empty, but it is not true that it is useless. A person does not always understand what is latent in his premises. And it is true that if you disagree with the premise of the argument, you are not compelled to accept the conclusion. That is nothing new. See, for example, the article here: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%2590%25D7%2591%25D7%25A8%25D7%2594%25D7%259D-%25D7%2590%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595-%25D7%2595%25D7%259B%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%25A2%25D7%2595-%25D7%2591%25D7%25A9%25D7%2591%25D7%2597-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A0%25D7%2597%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2594%25D7%259E%25D7%2591%25D7%2595%25D7%25A7%25D7%25A9&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiUjp-6pPaAAxX0h_0HHU4pD-gQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw37yVjGVjrk_7SLbvVFzKpq
If so, then it is circular reasoning in some sense, no? You assume the existence of the Creator, and on that basis you build a logical argument that proves it (or at least shows that it is plausible). Meaning that if from the outset I disagree, Heaven forbid, with the premise about the existence of God, then you can throw the whole argument in the trash?