Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Schmecky · 05-01-2002, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
Schmecky,

You ask about burden of proof. If I want to show that this argument is not a proof, I must show that either one or more of the premises is false, the argument is invalid, or the notion of proof is mistaken.

cheers,

anonymousj

Fair enough. So have you accepted that god is dead?

Goliath · 05-01-2002, 05:51 AM

anonymousj,

As a graduate student in Mathematics, it is my professional opinion that you have no clue as to what a logical argument is.

Premise 1) in your argument is not an axiom. Therefore it must be proven.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
With authors of logic texts, let us understand a sound argument to be an argument with all true premises in which the conclusion follows from the premises.

Then, let us hold that a sound argument for Pis a proof that P.

"God" will refer to the Christian God.

Argument G: A proof that God exists.

1. If something exists, then God exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. God exists.

Some preliminary, anticipatory comments.

i) This argument is a proof that there is a God. It is notoffered as a proof that (1), 'If something exists, then God exists'.

ii) It is not part of the definition of 'proof' here that every premise in the argument must be proved (this would be a condition on proof that couldn't be satisfied anywhere, and hence, it is a reductioon this as a conditon on 'proof').

iii) In order to show that this is not a proof, one must either show that one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid, or that the notion of proof it satisfies is, in some way, deficient. One can, of course, stipulate any notion of proof that one likes. The above notion is, intuitively speaking, what most seem to have in mind.

This should get things going!

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

Technos · 05-01-2002, 06:16 AM

How about this?

P1. All things that exist are composed of atoms, quantum particles, or energy.
P2. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, quarks and other such quantum particles are composed of energy clusters.
P3. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, something (energy) has always existed.

C1. The universe and everything in it is natural.
C2. There is no logical argument for the existence of gods.

BLoggins02 · 05-01-2002, 06:48 AM

Since I made the highest grade in my class of over 200 people in symbolic logic this semester, I feel I am qualified to say this:

[Note: This post uses the following translation schema -

P: Something Exists
Q: The triune Christian God Exists ]

1 (1) P->Q A
2 (2) P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 ->E

This is indeed a valid argument. However, this has shit-all to do with whether it's true or not.

Valid argument - An argument in which if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

You haven't proven that God exists, you've simply given a valid argument that God exists. The problem is, both assumptions on line 1 and 2 must be true for the argument to show that the conclusion is true.

I deny that the conditional is true. In fact, I assert that you are begging the question by insisting that we accept the conditional as an axiom.

I can use your same reasoning to not only 'prove' that God does not exist, but also 'prove' that your conditional is false:

1 (1) P->~Q A
2 (2) P A
3 (3) P->Q A [anon's axiom]
1,2 (4) ~Q 1,2 ->E
1,3 (5) Q 1,3 ->E
1,2 (6) ~(P->Q) 4,5 RAA(3)

Wow! See what wonderful things one can prove when you implicitly assume what you're trying to prove?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-01-2002, 06:50 AM

Goliath, not to be a picker of nits, but you would only have a "professional" opinion if you were paid, not if you were just a graduate student. Then it would be your academic opinion.

anonymousj, P1 fails on many levels, but primarily due to the fact that "God" is ineffable and therefore undefinable as a necessary condition.

Therefore, as Ender quite correctly pointed out, literally any "god" can be inserted into your syllogism:

Quote:

1. If something exists, then Vishnu exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. Vishnu exists.

1. If something exists, then Zuess exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. Zuess exists.

1. If something exists, then Allah exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. Allah exists.

1. If something exists, then The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo, Creator Of All Existence Above All Other Gods exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo, Creator Of All Existence Above All Other Gods exists.

This renders your syllogism trivial and pointless.

anonymousj · 05-01-2002, 07:11 AM

I will try to respond to all serious objections as time permits. Please bear with me!

BLoggins02,

Quote:

Since I made the highest grade in my class of over 200 people in symbolic logic this semester, I feel I am qualified to say this:
[Note: This post uses the following translation schema -

P: Something Exists
Q: The triune Christian God Exists ]

1 (1) P->Q A
2 (2) P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 ->E

This is indeed a valid argument. However, this has shit-all to do with whether it's true or not.

Valid argument - An argument in which if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

You haven't proven that God exists, you've simply given a valid argument that God exists. The problem is, both assumptions on line 1 and 2 must be true for the argument to show that the conclusion is true.

I deny that the conditional is true. In fact, I assert that you are begging the question by insisting that we accept the conditional as an axiom.

I can use your same reasoning to not only 'prove' that God does not exist, but also 'prove' that your conditional is false:

1 (1) P->~Q A
2 (2) P A
3 (3) P->Q A [anon's axiom]
1,2 (4) ~Q 1,2 ->E
1,3 (5) Q 1,3 ->E
1,2 (6) ~(P->Q) 4,5 RAA(3)

Wow! See what wonderful things one can prove when you implicitly assume what you're trying to prove?

The argument that you have offered cannot be a proof because it cannot be a sound argument. It cannot be a sound argument because the three premises (1, 2, 3) cannot all be true. A simple truth table analysis will show this.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj · 05-01-2002, 07:14 AM

All,

Let me invite you once again to test your complaints against my argument G across my argument P. If you allow that P is a proof, then any objection to G as a proof that is also an objection to P as a proof, must have something wrong with it, unless there is a relevant difference.

cheers,

anonymousj

Automaton · 05-01-2002, 07:17 AM

Do not feed the troll.

Goliath · 05-01-2002, 07:18 AM

Koy,

Quote:

Goliath, not to be a picker of nits, but you would only have a "professional" opinion if you were paid, not if you were just a graduate student. Then it would be your academic opinion.

I realized this as I started walking to my 9:00 class. I suppose one could argue that I'm getting paid to teach (and hopefully, I'll be getting paid to do some research this summer), so in that sense, I'm a "professional."

However, your nit is well picked. Oh well, I've certainly said and done dumber things before than replacing "academic opinion" with "professional opinion."

Sincerely,

Goliath

philechat · 05-01-2002, 07:20 AM

Yes, and we are questioning about the validity of your premise 1. We think your premise 1 is not valid for it is not an axiom. It already assumed such argument: "Something exists if and only if God exists". Until you could prove this argument (that A -> B, ~A -> ~B ), otherwise we are not obligated to accept your premise 1.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

05-01-2002, 07:20 AM	#30
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Yes, and we are questioning about the validity of your premise 1. We think your premise 1 is not valid for it is not an axiom. It already assumed such argument: "Something exists if and only if God exists". Until you could prove this argument (that A -> B, ~A -> ~B ), otherwise we are not obligated to accept your premise 1. [ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ] [ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2002, 06:16 AM	#23
Technos Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Nashville, Tennessee Posts: 136	How about this? P1. All things that exist are composed of atoms, quantum particles, or energy. P2. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, quarks and other such quantum particles are composed of energy clusters. P3. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, something (energy) has always existed. C1. The universe and everything in it is natural. C2. There is no logical argument for the existence of gods.

05-01-2002, 06:48 AM	#24
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	Since I made the highest grade in my class of over 200 people in symbolic logic this semester, I feel I am qualified to say this: [Note: This post uses the following translation schema - P: Something Exists Q: The triune Christian God Exists ] 1 (1) P->Q A 2 (2) P A 1,2 (3) Q 1,2 ->E This is indeed a valid argument. However, this has shit-all to do with whether it's true or not. Valid argument - An argument in which if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true. You haven't proven that God exists, you've simply given a valid argument that God exists. The problem is, both assumptions on line 1 and 2 must be true for the argument to show that the conclusion is true. I deny that the conditional is true. In fact, I assert that you are begging the question by insisting that we accept the conditional as an axiom. I can use your same reasoning to not only 'prove' that God does not exist, but also 'prove' that your conditional is false: 1 (1) P->~Q A 2 (2) P A 3 (3) P->Q A [anon's axiom] 1,2 (4) ~Q 1,2 ->E 1,3 (5) Q 1,3 ->E 1,2 (6) ~(P->Q) 4,5 RAA(3) Wow! See what wonderful things one can prove when you implicitly assume what you're trying to prove? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

05-01-2002, 07:14 AM	#27
anonymousj Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 66	All, Let me invite you once again to test your complaints against my argument G across my argument P. If you allow that P is a proof, then any objection to G as a proof that is also an objection to P as a proof, must have something wrong with it, unless there is a relevant difference. cheers, anonymousj

05-01-2002, 07:17 AM	#28
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Do not feed the troll.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.