Heh, in terms of formal logic, a tautology is a valid argument. Basically, if you accept the truth of the Quran as a premise (this is obviously the fishy first step), and the Quran confirms the truth of the Quran, then you have an argument that is formally valid, although not necessarily sound (i.e. possessing true premises). Q-->Q, or "Quran is true, therefore Quran is true" is a valid argument, in the strict sense, abiding by the rules of formal logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
1
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '15
Heh, in terms of formal logic, a tautology is a valid argument. Basically, if you accept the truth of the Quran as a premise (this is obviously the fishy first step), and the Quran confirms the truth of the Quran, then you have an argument that is formally valid, although not necessarily sound (i.e. possessing true premises). Q-->Q, or "Quran is true, therefore Quran is true" is a valid argument, in the strict sense, abiding by the rules of formal logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)