Liar lunatic or Lord

This is a disjunction of three arguments:

Liar or Lunatic or Lord

A disjunction is commutative in that it does not depend on the order of evaluation of the arguments.
To evaluate a disjunction (or any expression), one needs to pick an order in which to evaluate.

The liar (bad or evil) or lunatic (mad) or Lord argument originated with C. S. Lewis on a radio broadcast to argue for the divinity of Christ. The basic claims go back further in time. The argument is sometimes called a trilemma. The argument was later used by Josh McDowell on college campuses where it became more well known. Is the logic valid?

Some try to avoid the argument by asserting that Jesus never claimed to be Lord.

More: Disjunction in Matthew

Wikipedia (as of 2025-03-29): John Duncan (1796-1870) stated the following.

Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.

Knight, William (1870). Colloquia Peripatetica. p. 109. Knight explains that the conversations quoted took place during the summers of 1859 and 1860.

Many logical fallacies can be viewed from multiple perspectives.

A false dilemma presents one with alternatives that are either not complete or lacking in some respect.
The converse error takes an implication and turns it around in a way that is not valid.
The begging the question fallacy, from Aristotle, is that of in some way assuming the conclusion in the premises.

Note that the logical argument can be invalid in one or many ways but the conclusion may be true.

That is, disproving the proof does not mean that what is claimed to be proven is actually not true.

More: False dilemma

More: Converse fallacy: If A then B does not mean If B then A

More: Begging the question: assuming the conclusion

Many logical fallacies can be viewed from multiple perspectives. This idea is reflected in computer programming in the returning of error codes from a process, routine, etc.

In general, 0 represents false and 1 represents true. However, there is, in general, only one way for something to work while there are many ways for it to not work. Thus, the following convention is often used for returning error codes.

Code 0 means it worked.
Code 1 is error number 1.
Code 2 is error number 2.
... and so on ...

In computer code, the first error detected is returned. The code never gets to other possible errors. In the same manner, any logical reasoning that is not valid can have many possible error codes. When more information needs to be returned in computer code, a set (or list) representation might be used.

1 2 3 4 + - ▶

Consider the alternatives for the liar or lunatic or Lord trilemma.

Are they collectively exhaustive (include all alternatives)?
Are they mutually exclusive (do not overlap)?
Are they both collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive?

How many of liar, lunatic or Lord are dependent on viewpoint?

More: Sets: Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive

How many of liar, lunatic or Lord are dependent on viewpoint? Are these assumptions assuming the conclusion?
Discuss:

Identify the lunatic or lunatics in the TV show Green Acres.
How does one determine a lie?

Are there people who would consider themselves Lord (e.g., King, dictator, etc.) who meet the following criteria?

They never lie. Do they lie (in some way)?
They are sane (not mad). Could they be considered a lunatic (in some way)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 + - ▶

Deductive reasoning is top-down from assumptions. For invalid reasoning, these assumptions may not hold.

Some try to avoid or side-step the argument by asserting that Jesus never claimed to be Lord.


declarative - inductive bottom-up	imperative - deductive top-down

To evaluate a disjunction (or any expression), one needs to pick an order in which to evaluate.
As one goes from inductive (some call it abductive) to deductive reasoning, the assumptions in the deductive reasoning become important. This can involve the following.

"Assuming the conclusion", called "begging the question".
This can involve "circular reasoning" as a general concept.

Some try to avoid or side-step the argument by asserting that Jesus never claimed to be Lord.

[abductive reasoning]

More: Catch-22 situations

More: The viscous cycle of catch-22 situations

English: Circular or reciprocal proof consists in using the conclusion and the simple conversion of one premise to demonstrate the remaining premises, which was assumed in the original syllogism. (Loeb#325, p. 437)

Greek: Τὸ δὲ κύκλῳ καὶ ἐξ ἀλλήλων δείκνυσθαί ἐστι τὸ διὰ τοῦ συμπεράσματος καὶ τοῦ ἀνάπαλιν τῇ κατηγορίᾳ τὴν ἑτέραν λαβόντα πρότασιν συμπεράνασθαι τὴν λοιπήν, ἣν ἐλάμβανεν ἐν θατέρῳ συλλογισμῷ. Aristotle: Prior Analytics [57b]

In the 1960's the speed of light was redefined to be based on certain atomic measurements. These measurements are themselves based on the speed of light.

Recursive: referring to itself. See recursive.
So, using circular reasoning, the speed of light is defined in terms of the speed of light such that it never changes. This is like using a "rubber ruler" that can adapt to whatever it is that one is measuring.

More: Aristotle

More: Recursively running back again with the palindromes

More: The speed of light and other physical constants

English: Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. (Loeb#325,485)

Greek: Τὸ δ' ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι καὶ λαμβάνειν ἐστὶ μέν, ὡς ἐν γένει λαβεῖν, ἐν τῷ μὴ ἀποδεικνύναι τὸ προκείμενον, … Aristotle: Prior Analytics [64b]

The Latin word "petitio principii" ≈ "an assumption from the beginning" comes from the ancient Greek word "ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι" ≈ "in the beginning take as an assumption".

This is called "begging the question" from an inaccurate translation of "assuming the initial point" and then a change in meaning of "beg" as in "raise a question". In modern English, the meaning of "begging the question" has changed to that of "avoid the question" or "evade the issue".

More: Aristotle

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. [kjv]

η γαρ σωματικη γυμνασια προς ολιγον εστιν ωφελιμος η δε ευσεβεια προς παντα ωφελιμος εστιν επαγγελιαν εχουσα ζωης της νυν και της μελλουσης [gnt]

Is "bodily" "exercise" "profitable"? What is the objective function? None is provided but one might be inferred.

Is "godliness" "profitable"? What is the objective function? This is added at the end as a "promise".

The reasoning is similar to that attributed to Aristotle and pointed out as a deception of "begging the question" or "assuming the conclusion". In the case of this verse, what Paul (the assumed writer) is claiming is "begging the question" in that he is assuming an objective function (for the latter claim) and then using it to support the claim of "profitable". Logically, then, this verse does not really say anything important.

More: Begging the question: assuming the conclusion

More: 2 Timothy 3:13-17 All writings are surely written

Here is one diagram, representative of many, that claims to show the logic.

Some try to avoid or side-step the argument by asserting that Jesus never claimed to be Lord.
Note the "begging the question" or "assuming the conclusion" in the logic. The main questions is the following.

What are the specific claims of Jesus and, more generally, the Bible?
How does one determine if they are true?
How does one define truth?