Are there still liberal Mormons?

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." In this case, the argument assumes the conclusion that eye witness testimony is unreliable, and then uses that assumption to conclude that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is also unreliable. However, the argument doesn't actually provide any evidence to support the claim that eye witness testimony is unreliable in this specific case, or that the eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon is unreliable. Instead, it simply assumes that eye witness testimony is generally unreliable, which may or may not be true in this particular instance.
PiAI

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." In this case, the argument assumes the conclusion that eye witness testimony is unreliable, and then uses that assumption to conclude that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is also unreliable. However, the argument doesn't actually provide any evidence to support the claim that eye witness testimony is unreliable in this specific case, or that the eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon is unreliable. Instead, it simply assumes that eye witness testimony is generally unreliable, which may or may not be true in this particular instance.
PiAI

Regards,
MG

Lol, no, it's not. Your A.I. answers are the epitome of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Here, I wrote you a 'begging the question' example:

1. I assume that posters at this forum are anti-Mormons who always disagree with Mormons because they hate the LDS church and are sinners who no longer know anything about the church they grew up in because when you turn to sin your brains fall out.

2. When I post here as a TBM Mormon, people ALWAYS disagree with me. I am also intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

3. Therefore, I conclude the reason people disagree with me, a TBM Mormon, is NOT because I am intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, but because they are anti-Mormon sinners who hate the LDS church, and don't know anything about any LDS topics because they have no brains.

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?
Regards,
MG

Lol, no, it's not. Your A.I. answers are the epitome of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Yes, the argument you provided is an example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning or begging the question. This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises, essentially restating the initial assumption as proof without providing any new evidence.
In your example:
Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Therefore, the best evidence for The Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The conclusion is essentially a restatement of the first premise, making the argument circular. It doesn’t provide any new information or evidence to support the conclusion, but rather relies on the initial assumption to prove itself.
Copilot A.I.

Two for two. The input is straightforward. It’s not garbage.

Is it possible that IHAQ’s sig line is garbage as he is apparently begging the question and using circular reasoning?

Regards
MG

[Gadianton]

MG, you and copilot apparently don't know what a syllogism is. with more training, the LLM may figure it out, unfortunately, you probably won't. No matter how much training.

It's hilarious that you just shot yourself in the foot again because you failed to understand the material, and this after I tried to give you advice on how to avoid this problem, and you told me I lost you after the first sentence. See? This is the result of not listening to me. I was trying to help.

[MG 2.0]

MG, you and copilot apparently don't know what a syllogism is. with more training, the LLM may figure it out, unfortunately, you probably won't. No matter how much training.

It's hilarious that you just shot yourself in the foot again because you failed to understand the material, and this after I tried to give you advice on how to avoid this problem, and you told me I lost you after the first sentence. See? This is the result of not listening to me. I was trying to help.

Syllogism: A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.

Wouldn’t begging the question or circular reasoning fall under this definition of a syllogism?

You are saying that two different LLM’s are ‘up in the night’?

I mean, I know you’re smart gadianton, but really…?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Not circular.

Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Therefore, the best evidence for The Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Circular (but still valid):

Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Normally you learn logic with examples like this:

premise: dogs are made out of fruit.
premise: anything made out of fruit is cute.
conclusion: dogs are cute.

Totally valid argument. Not circular. Not fallacious.

Logical fallacies deal with the structure of the argument, whether the argument is good, or true, or anything beyond that is another matter.

[MG 2.0]

Not circular.

Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Therefore, the best evidence for The Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Circular:

Premise: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise: The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony.
Conclusion: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Normally you learn logic with examples like this:

premise: dogs are made out of fruit.
premise: anything made out of fruit is cute.
conclusion: dogs are cute.

Totally valid argument. Not circular. Not fallacious.

Logical fallacies deal with the structure of the argument, whether the argument is good, or true, or anything beyond that is another matter.

So after having seen three criticisms of IHAQ’s sig line by three different A.I.’s do you consider IHAQ’s sig line to be ‘clean’ without any problems? On its face and after having had input from three A.I. resources I’m questioning whether his word ought to be fully trusted.

I suppose readers can defer to your expertise rather than three A.I. systems.

To me, as a simple man (nod to BillO’Reilly), his sig line seems pretty dang circular without any evidence to support it.

I guess we can leave it to others to determine things on their own.

I’m just concerned that a sig line ought to be true rather than potentially false.

Regards.
MG

[MG 2.0]

Here’s the third:

This argument contains a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization or faulty generalization. The reasoning assumes that because eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable, any specific instance of eyewitness testimony (in this case, the testimony supporting The Book of Mormon) must also be unreliable.
While it is true that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, this does not automatically discredit all instances of such testimony. The argument fails to consider the possibility that the specific eyewitness accounts related to The Book of Mormon could be reliable or that they might be supported by additional evidence.
Conclusion

In summary, the argument is indeed an example of a logical fallacy, as it draws a broad conclusion about the reliability of evidence based solely on a generalization about eyewitness testimony without considering the specific context or additional supporting evidence.
You.com

Regards
MG

[Res Ipsa]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." In this case, the argument assumes the conclusion that eye witness testimony is unreliable, and then uses that assumption to conclude that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is also unreliable. However, the argument doesn't actually provide any evidence to support the claim that eye witness testimony is unreliable in this specific case, or that the eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon is unreliable. Instead, it simply assumes that eye witness testimony is generally unreliable, which may or may not be true in this particular instance.
PiAI

Regards,
MG

No. It’s a different fallacy.

[Gadianton]

So after having seen three criticisms of IHAQ’s sig line by three different A.I.’s do you consider IHAQ’s sig line to be ‘clean’ without any problems? On its face and after having had input from three A.I. resources I’m questioning whether his word ought to be fully trusted.

I suppose readers can defer to your expertise rather than three A.I. systems.

To me, as a simple man (nod to BillO’Reilly), his sig line seems pretty dang circular without any evidence to support it.

Again, your problem is willful ignorance. You don't want to learn. You want A.I. to just say you're the winner.

Go read about syllogisms. You don't need to know anything about A.I. to see that there is nothing wrong with the structure of IHAQ's syllogism.

logic has nothing to do with evidence. When a fallacy is committed, especially a formal fallacy, we can't get to the part about evidence because the claim is essentially meaningless.

IHAQs syllogism is totally valid. But valid isn't TRUE. For a syllogism to be true, the premises must be correct and it must be valid. If you don't like IHAQs syllogism, the answer isn't to guess and call it circular reasoning when it's not, but to dispute the premises.