tronvillain

A quick observation: God could actually exist and anonymousj's argument could still be unsound, in that premise one might not follow.

Kenny

No, it's material implication; check a truth table. The only thing required for the statement: p -> q to be true is that q be true (remember the cats from Lady and the Tramp: "We are Siamese if you please. We are Siamese if you don’t please.&#8221 . If God exists, then the statement: “If something exists, God exists” is also true.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Goliath

Kenny,

Yes, but that's one *giantic* "if."

Of course, since the claim that a god exists is unproven, any argument starting with "if a god exists" is useless.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Kenny

All I was pointing out is that Tron was wrong to say that even if God exists, the argument could still be unsound. If God exists, the argument is sound, though, perhaps, trivally so.

God Bless,
Kenny

tronvillain

Interesting. Perhaps you could actually lay out such a truth table? The statement "If something exists, then God exists" seems to imply that it follows from something existing that God exists, not just that both statement are true.

HRG

The truth table for "A =&gt; B" is simple (T = true, F = false):

T =&gt; T: true
F =&gt; T: true
T =&gt; F: false
F =&gt; F: true

Thus "If the moon is made of green cheese, then 1+1=2" is a true statement.

The distinction that you feel in your post has often be called "formal implication" (as above) vs. "material implication" (it follows by some deduction process). However, in formal logic it is impossible to draw, for:

"From A, you can deduce B =&gt; A"

is a rule of deduction.

At least, that's how I see it; IOW, I agree with Kenny, for what it's worth ....

Regards,
HRG.

wordsmyth

"If something exists, then God exists"

This is not a valid argument.

"Because something exists, God exists"

This is a valid argument.


"if" and "then" should under no circumstances be used in the premise of an argument. Thats just basic logic.

Synaesthesia

wordsmyth ,

Although I'm not well aquainted with formal logic, it seems to me that logic is sufficiently modular that an argument could be treated on the whole as a premise.

wordsmyth

The following FAQ link explains in brief why logic arguments should not contain "if-then" in the premise.
<a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_logic_argnot.htm" target="_blank">FAQ</a>

anonymousj

Wordsmyth,

I took a quick look at the site you linked in your last post, but I don't see where it says what you say it says. Maybe I just need more help (on this point-- I know that many of you think that I need a great deal of help on a lot of other things).

Let me recommend a logic site-

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm" target="_blank">Logic</a>

This site has been created using, among other texts, the Copi and Cohen text that I currently use.

A relevant section is called 'Argument Form'. Therein you will find

1. If P then Q,
2. P
----
3. Q

presented as one of the most basic forms of argument.

cheers,

anonymousj