Begging the question as I understand it is when you assume the conclusion is true in your premise.
If begging the question is invalid, but the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question, then begging the question must be valid, leading to a contradiction.
Therefore, to show that begging the question is invalid you can’t beg the question so why is begging the question invalid without begging the question?
In: 0
You need to distinguish between *valid* and *false*.
A *valid* argument follows the logical rules by which one thing can imply another. “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal” is a valid argument. So is “all men are potatoes, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is a potato”. The first one happens to *also* sit on true premises (which makes its conclusion true as well), but the latter argument is still *valid* even though its conclusion is false.
Similarly, “all men are potatoes, therefore Paris is the capital of France” has a true conclusion but is not a valid argument.
—-
That said, this is wrong for a lot of reasons:
* In what sense is “begging the question is invalid” begging the question?
* This bit: “If begging the question is invalid, but the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question, then begging the question must be valid, leading to a contradiction.” is not true, because P -> Q does not mean not P -> not Q (this is a [classic logic error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)).
Latest Answers