Ender

Kant said something to the effect that existence is not a predicate, nor is it a property. Meaning that the word "existence" does not add any information to the "object" in question.

I always whip out this story about a brand new vehicle whenever the stench of an onto proof of god is in the vincinty.
~WiGGiN~

wordsmyth

"If something exists, then God exists"

This premise is not valid because it presupposes not only that "God exists", but that it somehow relates to "something exists".

Your second premise confirms the antecedant.

"Something exists"

However, in this premise you have to show the correlation between something existing and God existing and you have not. All you have done is confirmed the pressuposition of the antecedant from the first premise without showing how it relates to the consequent which is "then God exists"

As I said earlier, if you reword the first premise to... "Because something exists, God exists" the presupposition becomes an assertion. An assertion by itself is not an argument until it is combined with other valid premises. Now that we have reworded the first premise and made it an assertion instead of pressuposition the second premise is open to show the correlation between "something exists" and "God exists", which is what you have to show to make it a valid argument.

Example:

P1: "Because something exists, God exists"

P2: This is where you demonstrate the correlation between God's existence and something existing, which you have not done

P3: "God exists" assuming that your other premises are valid and show direct correlation between antecedant and consequent we can finally arrive at a sound conclusion

I can't explain it any more simply than that.


Edited for grammar

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

Clutch

Premises are not valid, nor invalid. (No more than they're fallacious!) They are true or false. Confirming the antecedent is not a fallacy; it's modus ponens. (That's a valid form of argument.)

You seem to be just pointing out that aj has not given any reason to think his P1 true. But your message is easily lost in the confusion. I suggest that you go back and reflect a bit about conditionals, and the difference between premises and arguments.

SUTG

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: SUTG ]</p>

sir drinks-a-lot

To show that your argument is sound.

I'll take your word for it. No-one has shown that the premise is false.
Great. Go ahead and provide a sound proof of the first premise.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Sir Knight,
I second that request. Will it take another 10 pages of debate? Will it indeed ever be produced?

Methinks that our logic professor will have no more luck in this venture than have all the other illustrious intellectuals throughout history who have made the attempt.

Philosoft

Anonymous,

Apparently, you have an initial premise which is either objectively true or objectively false. But, as you have asserted, the only thing we can say about the initial premise is that it is either allegedly true (based upon a theistic presupposition) or allegedly false/inconclusive (based upon an atheistic presupposition). So basically what you have is a truth value of "either true or false."

Does a truth value of "either true or false" establish a sound argument?

Douglas J. Bender

To point out and correct a misunderstanding someone has here:
It is true that it is not logically possible for a unitary being to be the Father and the Son of the Father at the same time (without incredible twisting of meaning of "father" and "son"). But it is NOT true that it is a "defining quallity of the 'Christian God'" that God is both the Father and the Son of the Father at the same time - the Trinity is three individual Beings, Each of the same nature, substance, and eternality (uncreated), and they are perfectly united in heart, but they are distinct Persons. The Godhead refers to the Trinity as a whole, but each individual Person is "God" (uncreated, Creator, unending, etcetera). It is somewhat like a kingdom with three kings, who always have ruled that kingdom together, and always will, and who have always been, and always will be, perfectly united in heart.


In Christ,

Douglas

Koyaanisqatsi

Whatever, Dougie .

How many possible meanings do you think the term "something exists" has?

Further, as I pointed out before, aj states that the "God" he is referring to in P1 is the christian god, i.e., the triune god, a logically impossible construct, wherein "God" is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost at the exact same time that he is ineffable and impossible to either comprehend or define by man.

Do you need some vaseline...?

Re-flect yet again on what I've written and apply a modicum of critical anlysis, if you please.

Aj is committing a fallacy of ambiguous language as well as a fallacy of presumption as his own "mentor" describes.

That's the point to my posts that you seem to keep avoiding and I keep reminding you of.

His own source would be on our side, thus supporting my accusations of aj's scholarly dishonesty.

"Ill formed," huh? There is no condition established. None.

"If something exists" is not a legitimate conditional antecedent, let alone one that could possibly infer the consequent.

The first requirement of logic is specific definition, yes?

Of course yes. So let's define ak's terms as specifically as possible in order to really see what his syllogism is setting out to establish:

Aj's consequent: "An ineffable, impossible to comprehend mythological creature never demonstrated to factually exist outside that mythology, merely claimed to exist outside of that mythology, that cannot be defined as a necessary quality of its mythology other than in a logically impossible manner, is alleged to exist by the authors of the mythology and the cult members subsequently formed around this mythology, in a manner that has not been and cannot be established as existing physically, metaphysically or simply within the imagination of human beings with any degree of certainty."

His antecedent: "An unknown, unqualified, undefined thingthat has not been defined as existing physically, metaphysically or simply within the imagination of human beings as a construct or conceit of cognition, exists."

Shall we put them together as aj did?

That's the longhand version that reveals all of the fallacies aj's illegitimate short hand obfuscates as well as the fact that the only conclusion validly inferred from this conditional would be a tautology.

burp

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Clutch

Koy, First, I don't recall aj stating that he is referring to a logically impossible construct. You want to be a bit more careful to distinguish what someone says from what you think of what they say.

Second, if you have a proof (Call if M) that the Christian god is logically impossible, then your refutation of aj should take the following form:

M; aj's argument's being sound entails that not-M; by modus tollens and double negation elimination, aj's argument is not sound.

Why not give the proof -- insisting that you have it does not count, in your case no more than in aj's case -- instead of filling pages with invective and half-or-less-understood talk about conditionals, ambiguity, and fallacy?

Third, "Something exists", if well-formed, is not ambiguous. Maybe you are mistakenly treating 'something' as a referring expression; it's a quantifier phrase, however, and receives a univocal interpretation whatever the domain.

Fourth, whether "something exists" sets a genuine condition is not clear to me. If you think that it's coherent to contemplate the prospect of nothing existing, then "something exists" establishes a perfectly clear condition -- namely, that on which "Nothing exists" is false. Many, many people smarter than you have thought that it is indeed coherent to contemplate the prospect of nothing existing, but I have no settled view on the matter.

Finally, stop being a Bender-clone; learn something about logic before telling me how I'm just missing your simple and obvious point. It is not obvious to me, and your attempts to make it so are shot through with misunderstandings of logic -- many of which I have explained to you, without receiving any thanks.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>