Wyrdsmyth

I seem to come up against this argument a lot.

Let p stand for the negation of "God exists,"

let q stand for the negation of "Life has meaning."

(1) If p then q
(2) ~q
.: (3) ~p.

To put it more verbally, the argument is usually presented in this form: "If God did not exist, then life would have no meaning. But, life does have meaning. Therefore, God has to exist."

As I have presented the argument, is invalid. It has the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

So, even if one granted premises (1) and (2), this argument is showing up at the formality club with no coat and tie, can't even make it in the door...

Jinto

Actually, this would be denying the consequent, which IS a valid argument (if completely unsound). Sorry.

River

What if the laws of logic were not really "logical"?

How can we ever claim anything to be Objective if it Stems from A Subjective mind?

Ever Wonder?

Wyrdsmyth

Boy is my face red.



I'm confusing affirming the consequent with Modus Tollens. And I'm not even drunk.

Okay, the argument is valid... It's just the premises I object to.

Nevermind.

mosaic

Pointless questions. What is really logical? Can our loigc apprehend it? Nonsense. This constantr digging for immutable premises is foolish. And when you find what really logic, how are you to know that it is really, I mean, really, really, the logic that is really real? As far as objectivity. How about coming to grips wqith the fact that we're social creatures who create social mores and the consequences derive from that. We claim objectivity dependent on the society we live in. If people come to agree on things, then thats how it is. Logic ,is, however at our disposal to determine what should remian personally subjetive versus societal agreeance. Some things are better than others. We can determine this without metaphysics.

CX

The problem with this argument, though it is logically valid, is that the major and minor premises are not self-evidentally true. The statement "Without god life would have no meaning" can be rejected on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. To whit if leprechauns did not exist life would have no meaning. In order to salvage this premise additional argumentation is needed to demonstrate the truth of the premise. The other premise, I submit. Is undefined. Without further explanation it is essentially a meaningless statement.

mark9950

Without the "gods" there is no meaning.

The ancient peoples that wrote the bible felt that the gods would give them meaning.

I personally think that they were shallow,because you no god or gods give you anything(The crutch of jesus failed me many times).

You have to give your own life meaning.

Theli

What is the alternative?

exnihilo

I'm no cool-headed logician, but I did take a course on logic once.
It seems that the premise you raise , which is similar to other such formulaes put forth by St Anselm, John Duns Scotus, Descartes, Leibniz, such as the argument from design and the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, et al.
Basically all are founded upon tautologies, which whether or not they are true, the statements are nonetheless logical and valid. The problem is instead in the premise itself.
For example Anselm's first premise is that God is defined as the being to which none is greater.
Obviously, the "logic" of his argument then hinges upon this presumption, concluding in the famous statement:
Therefore, god exists...
Voila,
the only problem is that this whole argument is a tautology which only reinforces its own premises, which are ultimately based on the assumption of the premise of god in the first place and is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

--exnihilo

pariah

Why does life have meaning? Evidence plz.