Technos

Ok how about this one.

1. If something Exist, Allah Exist
2. Something Exist
------
3. Allah Exist


This illogical assumption can be used to support any given creator deity of any religion sect or cult. There is no real argument in the above assumption "If something exist a god must exist" it's just a superstitious presupposition. Something exist, but how does it follow that any given god exist? It doesn't unless you presuppose that whatever exist came from a supernatural being (a god) of some kind.

Oh and to the theist on the board, the word "god" isn't a very specific term. For all we know you could be talking about Shiva the Six Armed Goddess of Hindu, so Be More Specific and tell us which god you're speaking of. Remember your cult isn't the only one out there, and it isn't the only one that comes here making "if this then that" arguments.

Schmecky

anonymousj,

In some of my college math classes we had to do proofs. Here's the thing. We would start with something we knew was true and work (and these proofs could actually have quite a few lines) until you got to the conclusion you had set out to. What you're doing is equivalent to taking the last few lines of a proof and saying that they're the whole thing. If you don't prove your premises, than your proof is incomplete, clear and simple.

All talk of formal logic aside, it should be clear that you're not actually proving anything if you don't give some sort of argument for your premises.

Look at that post by Jesus Christ. If you would try to refute, for example, his proof that cows fly, maybe you'll see what's wrong with what you're saying. Or try to refute my proof that god is dead. If you say that you accept my proof that god is dead (which is of the same form as your "proofs") then I'll accept your proof and we can all be happy knowing that god exists, and he's dead.

sighhswolf

Excuse me.....
Could I ask a simple question?
Who really cares of god exists, if he is not doing a damn thing to help humanity?
Why discuss the existence of some supernatural divine being who does nothing but condone the
attrocities perpetrated on human kind since it's inception.
If this being does exist ( and my opinion is NOT)
his management of his creations through intimidation, and third party communication is well known.
His style of non-interference unless it is to inflict some form of divine punishment on humankind disqualifies "IT" as being worthy of worship, so who the heck cares if it exists?
wolf

BLoggins02

Well, that should just be about the end of this discussion.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kenny

Actually, this thread does raise an interesting philosophical question -- what makes for a demonstrative proof ? Validity and soundness do not appear to be enough.

For instance, consider the following “proof” of God.

Premise 1: God exists or 2+2=5
Premise 2: It is not the case that 2+2=5
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

This argument is valid. As a theist, I also believe the first premise, so I believe it is sound as well. Have you all converted yet? -- didn’t think so. The argument is not convincing because the only way someone is likely to believe the first premise is if they already believe in God. Though formally valid and (I believe) sound, the argument informally begs the question.

God Bless,
Kenny

anonymousj

BLoggins02,

As I said earlier, I was confused by your remarks. I had already allowed, in response to Automaton, I think, that given the truth of P, P-&gt;Q and P-&gt;~Q cannot both be true. It did not occur to me that you were attempting to show me what I had already allowed. I thought you were attempting to prove that the negation of my first premise is true. So, let us take a look at your remarks, which you have, I take it, restated in a later explanatory post.

I don't mean to pick nits that needn't be picked, but I do want to be careful, so bear with me.

You said, Have you shifted from the notion of proof that I am employing to a notion of 'proof' that merely means 'valid argument'? One cannot prove (sound argument) 'anything we like' from either of these, nor can one prove (sound argument) anything from the two of them taken together.

You said, Here I am not sure of your point. It sounds as though you might think that my first premise is to be interpreted as 'something exists' entails 'God exists'. I have not claimed that the first premise is a necessary truth. I have said that the argument is sound, which only implies that the first premise is true.

You said I am very puzzled by this remark, so, once again, I will proceed cautiously.

I have not said that you or anyone else must accept my first premise. I have claimed to produce a sound argument. If my argument is sound, it is sound whether or not you or anyone else accepts the first premise.

Begging the question: "To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in an effort to prove it." (Introduction to Logic 11th edition, Copi & Cohen) "God exists" is not a premise in the argument that I have offered.

You said, 'I am going to have to show you that you must accept my first premise' in order to accomplish WHAT? I don't have to do this to produce a sound argument, do I? All I have claimed to do is produce a sound argument.

Let me close this post by asking the following question: Are you running together 'proving/producing a sound' and 'showing that a proof is a proof/showing that a sound argument is sound argument'?

cheers,

anonymousj

David Gould

This is getting ridiculous.

If premise A is true, then God exists.

Yes. I accept that.

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that premise A is true.

I have read this thread all the way through and that is what everyone is asking you to do. You have repeatedly ignored this.

Please provide argument, evidence or desperate pleas to any non existent god you choose as to why premise A is in fact true.

MadMordigan

Great. The OAG fails, so theists pull out the Ontological Argument for the Ontological Argument for God.

Give it a rest man. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

BLoggins02

You're missing the point. My only purpose was to show you that I can prove what I set out to prove given my assumption, just as you can do the same with yours.


Which I did, given my premise. You take my assumption (P-&gt;~Q) about as seriously as I take yours which is, again, the whole point.

That is what a proof is. In logic, a proof is simply a line by line derivation showing that a conclusion must logically follow from a set of premises. That is, a proof states: "IF all of the premises are true, THEN the conclusion must also be true, and here is how we got there." Proof in logic means nothing more than this. One you have a valid argument, then you must show that the premises are true. This is what we aren't accepting. We don't accept your first premise. That is all, really.

True, I misspoke. My apologies. What I meant to say was that if I want to show a valid argument for any position whatsoever, it's not hard to come up with a set of premises that will suffice.

I simply stated that "if P then either Q or not Q" which is vacuously true, Q in no way depends on P. That's what I was saying.

Sound argument - a valid argument with all true premises.

So, for your argument to be sound, your premises must be true. However, you're stating the the argument IS sound so your premises ARE true. This is backwards. You've got to show us the veracity of your propositions before we accept the argument as sound.

If the argument is sound then yes we MUST accept your first premse. You can't just claim to produce a sound argument, you have to show that it is sound.

That's why I used the word "implicit" in my earlier posts. "God exists" may not be a premise, but P-&gt;Q is a premise, and the only way you're going to get someone to accept that as a premise is for them to acknowledge that God exists. If I don't believe in God, I'm not going to accept "if something exists then God exists" as a true statement.

Yes, you absolutely most certainly DO have to show that your first premise is true to produce a sound argument. Again, you can claim to produce a sound argument all day long, but until you show that the premises are true I can simply shake my head all day long.

A sound argument is a valid argument with all true premises. That's what a "sound argument" IS. No true premises, no sound argument. End of discussion.

I'm not running anything together, I'm simply trying to show you that yes, the argument is valid, but it's not EFFECTIVE because you're never going to get the people you want to convince in the first place to accept all of its premises.

Let me ask you this: if God's existence could be conclusively demonstrated with a simple three line modus ponens, do you think we'd be here having this conversation?

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

BLoggins02

And would someone please transfer this to RR&P, this is turning into a Goliath vs. Douglas J Bender discussion.