Jobar

Well, obviously theists have no conception of what logic is or how to apply it. If they did they wouldn't be theists, now would they?

So we need more good emotional arguments against theism.

Koy, you might try reducing your logical counter arguments to the main theistic fallacies to short haikus, which we could then automatically post, like icons, when we see theists attempt to use them. Imagine how useful they would be!

Clutch

Yes, actually, you would technically. You seem to be conflating "belief" with "faith" -- ironically, a fairly frequent theistic error.
No. Knowledge entails belief.
You've misunderstood, I think. The only point I can see is that you, Koy, can't think of a sound argument for theism. But you've said this in a way that makes it sound like an indication of just how hopeless theism is: I mean, not a single sound argument! But if there was even a single sound argument, theism would be, by definition, true. So your observation amounts to: Theism has not been decisively proven true, to your knowledge. Fine. Not to my knowledge either. Is that news? It looks like sound and fury...

Koyaanisqatsi

As always SOMMS you prove my point so eloquently the mind just boggles.

A "sound argument" means that the premises of the syllogism are all true and the argument is logically valid (i.e., sequitur).

And to confuse the purpose of logical syllogism and the terminology involved in this asinine manner demonstrates exactly why I created the post.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, actually, I would not. Your turn.

No, it does not in a technical manner, which is why I so qualified it.

If one knows something, there is no belief involved. It is an absolute, in the technical sense.

Please do not rehash the pointlessness of empiricism vs. solipsism for the umpteenth time as I have no intention of playing pointless semantics games, which, again, is why I qualified "know" in the technical sense.

Thus, to know something is to remove the uncertainty inherent within the qualifier "belief," which is why we have such linguistic qualifications.

It is not the "only" point, as I thought I clarified.

That would be your interpretation, of course, but that's why I clarified it. The indication is that, since there are none and can be none, theists should stop attempting to make them.

In other words, it is a fait accompli inherent within theism that no sound argument can be made so stop trying to make them and, further, stop misusing the terminology of logic as SOMMS so aptly illustrated.

It will save us all a lot of time, IMO.

Exactly.

And further to anyone else's, which is why I asked the question.

Can anyone think of a single, sound theist argument? It was an open challenge to all comers.

Partly, of course, it is. I'm tired of theists posting the same unsound arguments over and over and over and over again, thus, a call for anyone (anyone) to provide just one.

If they can't, we close the books on it and no theist need ever rehash the ontological syllogism, for example, ever again.

They can simply do what logic compells them to do and state, "There is no logical reason for my beliefs and never can be, so I will never misuse the terms and purpose of logic ever again, Koy, thank you for finally clearing it up for all concerned."

MOD? It's time this gets moved to the proper RRP thread, yes?

After all, we've established no such arguments can or do exist and SOMMS--a resident theist--illustrated my other point, so I'm done.

Let the brain rewashing begin.

Koyaanisqatsi

Jobar--

Excellent suggestion!

Or perhaps koans would be better?

Faith, like a boat, floats.

Use counter cognitive dissonance in order to correct the initial damage!

How's that, for starters?

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

This completely misses the point.

There are no sound logical proofs for milk.

Yet I don't see you heralding this from the 4 corners of the globe.


SOMMS

Koyaanisqatsi

What?

P1: If a cow excretes a liquid from its udders, the liquid can be said to exist.
P2: A cow demonstrably excretes a liquid from its udders.
P3: We call this liquid "Milk."
Therefore,
C: When a cow excretes liquid from its udders, it can be said that "Milk" exists.

All premises are true and the conclusion sequitur.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

P2: Not true. Some cows don't. Other may. I've never seen a cow 'demonstrably' excrete a liquid. If it is a universal truth then why have I not empirically witnessed it.

P3: Completely arbitrary. It could be called 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' just as well. There is nothing implicitly constraining that it must be called 'milk'.


Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Perhaps some insight into theists feel when discoursing with atheists who refuse to see or admit anything.

SOMMS

Clutch

Koy, It's unclear what any of that is, if not "pointless semantics games"!

Koy, there is a rather massive literature on analyses of knowledge and belief, as well as actual "technical" treatments of doxastic and epistemic logic. Here, as in other posts of yours I have seen, you seem to think that calling your idiosyncratic definitions "technical" invests them with some presumptive status. But what it shows, to anyone who knows the relevant field, is just that you do not. This is especially true of the technicalities of logic, to which you appeal with great frequency but little accuracy.

I appreciate (and enjoy) the vigour and enthusiasm with which you challenge theists. But no degree of vigour can make something good out of the Argument From I'm Making This Up. Your energy and wit are astonishing; why not work through some basic works on logic and language, and actually get it straight when you hold forth? My recommendations:

Elementary logic: Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits, Richard Jeffrey; Logical Options, Bell, DeVidi, Solomon.

Language: Introduction to Philosophy of Language, A. Martinich, (ed); Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, William Lycan

Oh, and for semantics that isn't pointless: Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics, Emmon Bach

good luck.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, thank you once again SOMMS for proving my point.



A cow. A cow demonstrably excretes a liquid from its udders.

That's where milk comes from; from a cow's udders.

Not "all" cows, a cow.

What possible difference would that make?

Because you've never gone to a farm or been around cows?

Any other utterly stupid observations? Sorry, to err is human; to moo, bovine.

But nonetheless "true." It is true that we call that liquid "milk."

But nonetheless true that we do, thus the premise is true.

Piercing argument. Pardon my stupidity.



Indeed.

Irony can be so non-ironic, which in itself is ironic, don't you think?