Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The argument from reason is a transcendental argument against metaphysical naturalism and for the existence of God (or at least a supernatural being that is the source of human reason). The best-known defender of the argument is C. S. Lewis .
Victor Reppert (born 1953) is an American philosopher best known for his development of the "argument from reason".He is the author of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (2003) and numerous academic papers in journals such as Christian Scholars' Review, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Philo, and Philosophia Christi.
Normative reasons are what people appeal to when making arguments about what people should do or believe. For example, that a doctor's patient is grimacing is a reason to believe the patient is in pain. That the patient is in pain is a reason for the doctor to do things to alleviate the pain. Explanatory reasons are explanations of why things ...
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]
Argumentum a fortiori (literally "argument from the stronger [reason]") (UK: / ˈ ɑː f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r i /, [1] US: / ˈ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ ɔːr aɪ /) is a form of argumentation that draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in, and even more certain than, the first.
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [ 1 ] The argument from authority is a logical fallacy , [ 2 ] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
There are 100 billion reasons to buy Amazon stock hand over fist right now, in my opinion. ... I think he made a compelling argument -- and I agree with it. Amazon's AI opportunity is huge.
Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect [85] Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.