anonymousj

David Gould,

I repeat the question that I put to BLoggins02-- 'I need to demnstrate that premise 1 is true' in order to accomplish WHAT?

{quote]I have read this thread all the way through and that is what everyone is asking you to do. You have repeatedly ignored this.[/quote] This is not quite accurate. Many repondents have suggested that since I haven't provided a demonstration that premise 1 is true, I haven't produced a proof (sound argument) that God exists. This is a mistake, but they don't seem to realize this. Do you realize this?

I would be foolish to offer a demonstration of premise 1 until it is decided what will count as a demonstration. Will a sound argument that has as its conclusion "If something exists, then God exists" be an adequate demonstration?

I have offered a sound argument that has as its conclusion, "God exists" , and it has been subjected to many, many objections none of which, in any way show that the argument is not sound. In fact, many of the objections are not even attempts to show that the argument is unsound. Yet many of these responders are confident that they have shown that my argument is not a proof, not a demonstration.

It would be foolish to attempt a demonstration that my first premise is true without taking steps to insure that the same mistake that responders are making here isn't made there--- don't you agree?

cheers,

anonymousj

Ender

Here's why I think you're full of bullcrap, AnonymousJ.

If you've done prepositional calculus, you'd recognize the importance of the questions you've been getting about the first premise.

Your argument is of the form: "Given P -> Q, and P, we can deduce Q"

In prepositional calculus, the formal argument is written as follows:
1 (1) P-> Q A
2 (2) P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 MPP

the first two premises are assumptions, signified as A - the first rule of derivation. This rule permits you to introduce at any time of an argument any proposition you choose as an assumption of the argument. There is no limit on the kinds of assumptions you may make.

The conclusion is a modus ponendo ponens that concerns with the arrow operator, the ->. Given as premises a conditional proposition and the antecedent of that conditional, the rule MPP allows you to draw the consequent of the conditional as a conclusion.

Since your argument is in a deductive syllogism form, the validity of your argument depends on whether the conclusion is true in every cases in which all the premises are true. Others have asked you whether your first ASSUMPTION was true. The soundness of your argument depends on whether it is valid and has no false premises. When a conclusion does follow from the given premises the argument is sound.

Ergo your argument is valid. But is it sound? Why or why not?

~WiGGiN~

anonymousj

Kenny,

You say, Well done, Kenny! You are quite right. This is an issue that is central to a discussion of my argument G, and to the argumentation, such as it is, that takes place in various other topics on this discussion board.

You say,
You point out that the argument is formally valid and that it informally begs the question. Could you be more explicit about what you mean by 'informally begging the question'. I have heard/seen this notion used to describe arguments in which the premises used are not formally question-begging, but also highly controversial (as controversial as the conclusion perhaps). Is this all that you mean?

The argument that you have offered is one that would not be likely to convince/convert many people. But, while it may be one that you believe to be sound, only because you already believe that there is a God, that does not change the fact that it is sound. Any argument, any proof of any kind is going to be assessed as sound only by those who believe that the premises are true.

cheers,

anonymousj

Vorkosigan

This thread is still going on? I wondered what that smell was....

Vorkosigan

anonymousj

Ender,

You say, No comment!

Your discussion here is unclear to me (and this may very well be because I am not familiar with this paricular presentation of sentential logic). Is your argument form (above) intended as a derivation of the conclusion from the empty set, using a 'conditional proof' technique? Is it an example of a derivation of the conclusion from the premises, an elementary example offered at the early stages of a course in symbolic logic (instruction: From premises 1 and 2, derive Q using truth preserving rules of inference)? Can you tell the source for this notation/system. It appears to be similar to the system that BLoggins02 has employed, and my lack of familiarity resulted in my misunderstanding his/her efforts. I have a access to a number of logic texts, not all of which I have looked at, so I might be able to avoid future error of understanding.

I know this!

Right! A valid argument form is one in which there is no possibility of all true premises and a false conclusion.

This last statement threw me. but it is probably just a misunderstanding on my part. You mean here, 'When the conclusion follows from all true premises the argument is sound, right!

It is sound because it is valid and the premises are true. This is what I said in the post that started the topic. Nothing that you have presented here was intended to show that it is unsound was it? Because nothing that you have presented shows that it is unsound. You allow that it is valid. You have done nothing to show that the premises are false. Since yo allow that it is valid, the only thing that can show that the argument is unsound is to show that the other condition, all true premises, isn't satisfied. But you haven't done that.

Do I misunderstand you?

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]</p>

anonymousj

BLoggins02,

On the assumption that you are interested, I am not ignoring you latest post. I will get to it soon. In the meantime, can you tell me the source for the logic system/notation that you are employing. It looks like others are familiar with it, and I will simply switch to it, should the occasion arise, to avoid further misunderstandings.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Earlier I posted the following:
----------
Argument P: A proof that I am in Pennsylvania.

1. If the State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital, then the State that I am in now is Pennsylvania.
2. The State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital.
----
3. The State I am in now is Pennsylvania.

The above argument P is, by the definition of proof that I offered at the beginning, a proof that I am in Pennsylvania. If you agree, then any objection that you offer against argument G, if it is also an objection against argument P must be a flawed objection.
----------

Now consider the following argument which is generated by replacing the consequent of the first premise of argument P with a diffferent consequent.

1. If the State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital, then the State that I am in now is Delaware.
2. The State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital.
----
3. The State I am in now is Delaware.

I assume that this fact-- the possibility of framing arguments such as this, adding even bizarre consequents in place of 'the State I am now in is Pennsylvania-- does nothing to show that argument P is not a sound argument.

Hence, all of the efforts to show that there is something wrong with my argument G that are nothing but variations of the 'move' presented above (consequent-replacement) do nothing to show that argument G is unsound. Unless, of course, there is a relevant difference that enables 'consequent replacement' to show something in the case of argument G that the 'technique' does not show in other cases.

Nothing has been done to show that argument G is unsound. It is clear that many are not convinced that it is sound, but this fact does not show that the argument is unsound.

Can we agree that if it is expected that showing that the argument is sound requires showing that one or more of the premises is true (the argument's validity is not in question), then showing that the argument is unsound requires showing that one or more of the premises is false (given that the validity of the argument is not in question).

It would be helpful if those of you who think that one or more of the premises can be shown/demonstrated to be false, show this. It will help clarify matters by providing a clear example of what you mean by proof.

cheers,

anonymousj

tommyc

Anon,

I have deduced from your most recent posts that all you are trying to prove is that you have a simple logical argument, with unproven premises.

Have a bone.

Why did you title this thread "A proof that there is a God"?. You have an argument, but no proof. At least admit you titled the thread wrongly, then we can all agree you have a basic grasp of logicical reasoning.

Good day

TOm Cooper

philechat

Hey...will you at least demonstrate God's existence before assuming his existence in the premise.

"God exists"
"How so?"
"The Bible said so."
"So what?"
"The Bible is the word of God."

Sound or unsound? Why?
And you haven't show me that "something exists if and only if God exists." If such a statement could be shown to be true, then you produced a rock-hard argument no infidels could break.

My explanation of the statement is as below:

Clutch

Non-anonymous time-waster,

Notwithstanding your risible claim to the contrary, there is no reason to think that you have given a sound argument. Some people have referred to it as sound; however, it is not difficult to find people who fail to understand the term -- you being a clear example.

An argument is sound when it is valid and has all true (relevant) premises. Hence, *determining* that an argument is sound requires determining both that it is valid and that its premises are true. The judgement that your argument is sound depends on a judgement that your premises are true. Since there is no reason to believe your Premise One true, there is no reason to think your argument sound. You must find some way to internalize this.

To diagnose. You seem to confuse there being no reason to think something true with there being decisive reasons to think it false. Since nobody can be bothered to offer the latter, with respect to your first premise, you feel enfranchaised to pronounce your argument sound. But were I simply to pronounce your first premise false, I would do so on just the same grounds from which you assert it in the first place, viz, none whatever.

You say, But why should anyone attempt such a foolish and time-wasting task, in the absence of any reason to believe it *true*? A valid argument which contained as a premise, "The term 'pickles' has been used exactly 15 billion times in human history" might well be a sound argument as well -- if this premise is true. But who would assume that a (practically impossible) obligation to *demonstrate* it false accrues to one sceptical of the premise? For such an argument, as with yours, it is devastating enough to point out that there is *no* reason to think the premise true, and hence *no* reason to think the argument sound.

If you have reason to think your first premise true -- or even *reasonable* -- you should trot it out. Otherwise you might consider finding the honesty to confess this little epicycle for the empty sophomorism it is.