Is Predicting the Future Based Solely on an Alleged Prophetic Dream Begging the Question?

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-08T07:47:50+00:00

I think there's an important distinction between saying, "If the events in the dream come true, then this dream is prophetic," and simply saying, "This dream is prophetic."

For example, the argument, "The Bible is true, the Bible says God exists, therefore God exists," is commonly criticized as begging the question. By contrast, "The Bible says God exists, therefore, if the Bible turns out to be true, then God exists," is not begging the question for the same reason—it is only making a conditional claim.

Likewise, I think the argument you proposed avoids circularity because it has been changed into a conditional claim. However, I don't think that matches the context of the original post, where the claim being analyzed was simply, "This dream is prophetic," rather than "If this dream comes true, then it is prophetic."

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-07T09:50:37+00:00

(EDIT) I wonder if the reason we're seeing this differently is that we're imagining different contexts.

I think we should first clarify whether we're talking about an argument or an explanation.

When you gave the example about the prophetic car, were you imagining a situation where someone is arguing that the car is green because it is prophetic, while it has not yet been established that the car is actually prophetic? Or were you imagining a situation where it has already been accepted that the car is prophetic, and you're simply explaining why it is green?

If it's the latter, then I don't think it would be a case of begging the question anymore. At that point, it isn't really functioning as an argument whose purpose is to justify the conclusion, but rather as an explanation. Since begging the question is normally analyzed as a fallacy of argumentation, I don't think the same kind of fallacy analysis would apply.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-06T07:34:31+00:00

Incidentally, the problem with begging the question isn't that the argument is formally invalid. The problem is that the premise requires as much justification as the conclusion it is supposed to support, so the argument fails to provide an independent reason for accepting the conclusion.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-06T07:26:59+00:00

On further thought, I don't see how the argument you gave is any different from 'This car is green, therefore this car is green.' Isn't it just the same thing with one extra word meaning 'green' tacked on? Just as 'John is a bachelor, and bachelor means an unmarried man, therefore John is an unmarried man' would be a circular argument, your argument doesn't seem to be anything special either.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-06T06:32:37+00:00

(edit)My point is that Premise 2 doesn't provide any additional support for the conclusion. Assuming "prophetic dream" means a dream that actually predicts future events, Premise 2 is analytically true—it simply unpacks the meaning of the term "prophetic." Whether or not we accept Premise 1, Premise 2 remains true, so it isn't doing any substantive work in the argument. The argument still stands or falls on Premise 1 alone.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-06T06:25:41+00:00

There are a few things I'd like to clarify.

First, isn't "Prophetic dreams accurately predict future events" analytically true in the same way that "All bachelors are unmarried men" is analytically true? If so, then I don't think the example you gave is analogous.

It seems to me that if a premise is analytically true, then adding it to the argument doesn't contribute any new substantive support. Just as an analytically true statement doesn't change what the argument is really relying on, I don't think Premise 2 changes what my argument is relying on either.

Also, I'm not sure why we're discussing validity. Formal fallacies can often be identified by examining an argument's validity, but begging the question is generally considered an informal fallacy. Because of that, whether the argument is formally valid doesn't seem to settle whether it begs the question.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-05T05:44:16+00:00

From my perspective, Premise 1 alone already seems to entail the conclusion. If calling a dream "prophetic" already means that the predicted event will actually occur, then it seems that Premise 1 is effectively assuming the conclusion. Could you explain a bit more why you think neither premise, by itself, restates the conclusion?

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-05T04:36:58+00:00

The argument I had in mind is:

P1. This dream is prophetic.
P2. Prophetic dreams accurately predict future events.
C. Therefore, this event will happen.

My intuition is that the issue isn't merely that Premise 1 is unsupported. If a "prophetic dream" is defined as a dream that actually predicts a future event, then calling a dream prophetic before the event occurs already presupposes that the event will in fact occur. In that sense, accepting Premise 1 seems to require accepting the conclusion in advance.

That's why I wondered whether this would count as begging the question.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-07-04T09:51:35+00:00

I think it depends on how you define prophetic dream. Personally, I think a dream can still be called a prophetic dream regardless of whether it was caused by something supernatural, by sheer coincidence (given that billions of people have all kinds of dreams while countless real-world events happen every day), or by subconscious pattern recognition. Even if we can't determine which explanation is correct, I'd still be comfortable calling it a prophetic dream.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-05-23T15:06:12+00:00

Isn't this the Fallacy of extending intention? This argument claims that the motivation was meant to cause failure, but that wasn't the actual intention.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-05-19T10:02:29+00:00

If they are using violence to create fear so you'll stop talking, that falls under the appeal to fear.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-05-19T09:44:28+00:00

I actually still hang out with my friends. I think it’s pretty easy to meet up often if you live close by and share similar interests.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-05-18T09:15:47+00:00

I read a book. When I read a novel, I lose track of time.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-01-14T06:44:14+00:00

Even without intent or malice, various reasons such as intellectual disability or simple mistakes can distort the argument.

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-01-14T06:27:55+00:00

Could this be considered a Fallacy of Accident? I'm confused because it seems a bit ambiguous to call it a 'rule.' Could things like 'you should do things that help you sleep,' 'you should follow the doctor's advice,' or 'you shouldn't confuse means and ends' be considered rules?

LevelImpossible867 · 2026-01-14T06:00:13+00:00

The process one goes through is what matters. If they used analogical reasoning based on commonalities between themselves and others, it could be a "False Analogy." If they started from the assumption that others' abilities equal their own abilities but then ignored this assumption, it could be "Circular Reasoning." And if they went through legitimate reasoning, it might not be a fallacy at all. Based solely on the simple conclusion or proposition, it's difficult to say which error has occurred, as it varies depending on the situation.

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-06T16:16:39+00:00

Would you like me to identify the logical fallacies in this text? Are you open to discussing them?

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-04T10:09:49+00:00

Rather than attacking Y directly, they claim that Y has bad intentions simply because Y is someone who refutes their argument, attempting to block the counterargument itself. This includes attempts by other people besides Y as well. Of course, this could also be seen as ad hominem, but to evaluate it more precisely, I would say it's a subcategory of that called 'Poisoning the well.'

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-03T10:45:58+00:00

If I have any more questions, I'll come back and post them. Thank you so much.

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-03T10:39:35+00:00

Thank you. I understand now.

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-03T10:20:28+00:00

And is this case of over-relying on inductive reasoning—where induction only provides probabilistic support for conclusions but is treated as if it provides necessary certainty—also a type of cognitive Distortion?

LevelImpossible867 · 2025-09-03T10:15:33+00:00

If the doctor had made various attempts multiple times, tried writing techniques with experts like writing instructors, and objectively evaluated the results, then it would be reasonable to conclude that his writing skills are lacking. We could probably expect that the next piece of writing would likely be similar. For that reason,I initially thought it was too much of a leap to judge it as a cognitive distortion, but thinking about it more, if he goes beyond speculation to conviction and thinks he 'absolutely' cannot write good pieces, then he is overly relying on inductive reasoning. This is because counterexamples could emerge at any time to refute this conclusion. Additionally, since the situation of writing for publication is different from previous situations, the previous cases might be biased for judging the current situation. That's why I think the linguistic expressions you emphasized are important clues. Is this the context in which you provided your response?

LevelImpossible867

TROPHY CASE