Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

Pro: “I apologize for forfeiting a round; I didn't make it in time. Either way, I think it is clear that I will have this debate in the bag after this round”. After Pro accidently forfeit round 3 he simply reasserted his earlier argument in this round - but without providing any proof (while presuming repeating himself will win the debate? Pro attempts to apply logic to prove his premise however we need to accept that “ALL TRUTH IS AN INFINITE REGRESS” for it to be true.. Pro’s Argument: “All truth entails aninfinite regress. Some truths are logically necessary. Thus, some truths cannotbe illogical (they are logically necessary). Since all truths entail aninfinite regress, and some truths are logically necessary; all infiniteregresses cannot be illogical”. All Pro’s argument boils down to is: all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses). some squigs (truths) are logical and some sguigs(truths) are illogical proving not all rams (infinite regresses) areillogical. Pro provides no proof that ALL TRUTH is are infinite regresses. Instead he just repeats it over and over. The only ‘evidence’ he provides is: for something to be truethen it is true that it is true…ad infinitum. This is a play on words, not reality. He then copy and pastes Wikipedia: "An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3,... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity" And adds… “Clearly, all truth implies an infinite regress. This is because to be true, it has to be true that it is true. For it to be true that it is true, it must be true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum”. Well, clearly, it does not imply ALL truth is an infinite regress, hence the “if”. In fact there are many alternative epistemological standpoints which counter your proposition that ALL TRUTH is an infinite regress, for example: Skepticism - knowledge is impossible The regress is finite, but has no end (Coherence view) The regress ends in self-evident truths, the axioms of geometry, for example (Foundationalist view) Non-inferential credibility, such as direct sense perceptions http://www.informationphilosopher.com... Pro: “Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”. Have you considered the logic of your sentence? “Some truth must not be illogical” means that ‘some truth is logical’…. ground breaking stuff!! J. Basically, your sentence reads “some truth is logical, but logically necessary” - the sum total of which is gibberish (and gibberish= illogical). Therefore, In your mind it was logical to write that “some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”, therefore ‘the illogical’ and ‘the logical’ existed simultaneously, albeit, unbeknown to you. Thus, You, yourself, have disproven the ’Law of Non-Contradiction’ that you put forward. The Illogical only exists because we apply logic to discredit it….. while in the process of applying logic to discredit something as illogical then the illogical and logical exist in a state of unrest until the observer accepts a truth, and decides upon the logical or not. Pro: Some Truths Are Logically Necessary Con: “for the logical mind to accept them, yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth" To which Pro replied “Well, his "truth" would be wrong then” I find this misguided at best (and extremely arrogant at worst. Pro knows the truth (reality) no more the next man… To the colour blind red may be green. That’s his truth - red IS green.To the crazy man ‘dry rain’ may exist because that is what he believes – THAT IS HIS TRUTH… his REALITY. Just because the ‘majority consensus’ dictates that dry rain is an implausible notion does not mean that the crazy man’s truth does not exist, it is HIS TRUTH. This further proves that the logical and illogical can exist simultaneously between humans, conceptually at least. However, Illogical and Logical ‘truths’ existing simultaneously, are not exclusively reserved for between the minds of the maniac and sane, but also between the ignorant and informed, and the theist and atheist, for example. Conclusion. I have unaswered rebutals from round two. Pro simply repeated his arguments from round two. Pro cannot apply logic to make a statement about a premise he failed to prove. Pro attempted to apply logic to prove that not all infinite regressesare illogical,. but for this to be true he required us to accept that ALL TRUTH wasan infinite regress. However Pro provided NO PROOF that ALL TRUTH was an infinite regress (...infact I actually provided epistomological alternatives to the infinite regress). ....therefore, contrary to Pro’s belief, he failed to establish his resolution.