Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 07-15-2002, 11:13 AM

Koy!

I don't even understand the essence of what comprises an appropriate/'sound' argument? I think if I was logical, I'd surely be an atheist!

So please Mr. logician, tell me more. Please tell me how I should think like an atheist and become perfectly logical, rational, and all the rest. Tell me what to believe or how to think better, thru this logic of yours. Help me break free from the bondage of Christianity.

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Plump-DJ · 07-15-2002, 12:33 PM

To RainbowWalker

Quote:

The infinite universe models say that all past events have been traversed coming forward. So, we should be able to traverse all events going backwards. After all, there are no more events going backward, than are coming forward; there are the exact same number of events.

rw: No, if there are an infinite number of events they cannot be an EXACT number since there is no EXACT number equivalent to infinity. It will be infinity backwards eternally or until one gets tired of reverse. If one gets tired of reverse and gives up and has counted his steps backwards then, and only then will he have an EXACT number of steps forward but only because he gave up going backwards, not because he exausted all steps and was forced to turn around because there were no more steps to be taken.

So what is the fallacy here? Are you saying the set of events we call the past is *not* infinite in the infinite model universe? If you say it is by your own reasoning it's either a) meaningless to say so (what the heck does the word infinite even mean then) or b) finite in which case it began.

I see no problem with his point here.

Quote:

rw: Only if you equivocate "all" from an infinite perspective with an "all" from an EXACT number of steps perspective.

Again.. what are you really saying? Can you tell us how many past events exist in a universe that is infinitely old then? 20, 40, A trillion, A Zillion..?

Quote:

rw: But if you don't surrepticiously change the meaning of infinite to "all" and equivocate that meaning, you'll never come to an end.

All of your objections are based on this same point. So perhaps you can tell us what the infinite universe model really says? I see no problem with his logic, but i do see problems with your objection. If the set of events called the past is not infinite then it is finite. So if you pick 20 million events or a Quad-rillion you will eventually come to a beginning.

Quote:

You see, an end going backward would be a beginning coming forward, and if it had a beginning it must be finite. If it is finite it is not infinite.

rw: But if you postulate an INFINITE regress you will never, ever, in all eternity, come to an end...or doesn't this guy get this?

Yes.. that's the point. If the past is comprised of an infinite Regress you would not get to a beginning or "end" going backwards. Did you pick up the reason why he "swapped it around" with his thought experiment.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]

AtlanticCitySlave · 07-15-2002, 12:48 PM

While I agree Koy often uses words in a, well, odd way (like saying to “know” does not constitute a “belief”, which goes against basically all of epistemology) , I think it’s pretty clear he expressed what a sound argument is clearly, so I’m confused why WJ keeps writing:

“I don't even understand the essence of what comprises an appropriate/'sound' argument? I think if I was logical, I'd surely be an atheist! “

-Koy has already said several times what constitutes a sound argument (true premises and a valid logical structure). You seem to keep ignoring that. However, I agree, if you were logical you would probably be an atheist.
Moving on, I think it’s unfair to take Koy to task on an empirical sound argument, since the majority of us (if not all of us) accept certain propositions as true. Playing the skeptic, while cute and everything, doesn’t get us anywhere (at least in this case). While we all can wonder “gee, is there really a cow out there?”, in the end all of us (at least it seems in this forum) proceed as if there are cows in the world, as well as the other things that make up our experiences. I mean, it would be very odd to deny this argument as sound:

(1) Cows usually produce milk
(2) Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O’Donnell are both cows.
(3) Therefore, Oprah Winfrey and Rose O’Donnell probably produce milk.

Assuming Oprah and Rosie are actual cows sitting on a farm, it seems (at least to me), this argument is sound, even though it’s an empirical one. Cows DO usually produce milk (especially if you don’t count the billions locked up in warehouses waiting to be slaughtered), and if we have two cows, it would follow they probably do give milk. As Koy pointed out, the main force of an argument like this is what we mean by the word “cow”. If “usually producing milk” is a common characteristic of a cow, the obviously, assuming Oprah and Rosie are cows of this type, it would follow they probably produce milk.
I mean, let’s cut through the BS already. There are no 100% sound theistic arguments and there are no 100% sound atheistic arguments, since you can always doubt SOMETHING in all of them, and hence why the debate rages on. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not an atheist because I found one be all and end all atheistic argument, but rather because I think the arguments in favor of atheism outweigh those on the theism side.

WJ · 07-15-2002, 01:34 PM

Atlantic/Koy!

Yea I think Kenny pointed out this issue about 'soundness', but didn't hear it from Mr. Logician. It is funny though that the second part of my question gets no response... Nevertheless, it too is funny that I came to the exact opposite conclusion as I believe that the theist arguments outwayed the atheist. Imagine that one.

Anyway, this kinda reminds me of the 'what's the point' thread, among many others...

Can anyone help me think better? How can I free myself from that bondage of Christianity? Why do I believe what I believe? Help me, God exists?!
HELP!

St. Robert · 07-15-2002, 06:24 PM

If anything exists, then God exists. Something cannot come from nothing.

Philosoft · 07-15-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by St. Robert:
If anything exists, then God exists. Something cannot come from nothing.

Except God, right?

Oh wait, God isn't something. Well, he is, but he is a different kind of something from the kinds of somethings we're used to observing. How do we know there is another kind of something that is different from all other kinds of something, and that we have never observed? I dunno. The Bible?

AtlanticCitySlave · 07-15-2002, 07:30 PM

"It is funny though that the second part of my question gets no response... Nevertheless, it too is funny that I came to the exact opposite conclusion as I believe that the theist arguments outwayed the atheist. Imagine that one."

-The way to think more rationally is to study logic, since logic is the tool of rationality. You can do this by either purchasing or borrowing a book on logic, preferably Copi's book, which most agree is a good one on the topic. Flew has a book "How To Think Straight", which could help you in your quest to think better. Of course, you may think rationally without the use of any instruction.
That you find theistic arguments to be better overall than atheistic ones is not surprising, especially considering you didn't know what constituted a sound argument. I am not aware, nor are most in here I imagine, of a single theistic argument that has any merit. Taken together in the leaky bucket approach, as Swinburne might do, doesn't help either, since theist arguments are so helpless there isn't even a bucket, just a big pool of water waiting to drown people in stupidity.

Jobar · 07-15-2002, 08:24 PM

I had in mind a concise statement of, say, the argument from evil, to prove the impossibility of a God with specific attributes- thus:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Given 1. and 2. God is impossible.

I've seen several arguments of this form; they require theists to re-define God (or evil) to disqualify them. My point was that arguments such as this are more valid (IMO) than any pro-theistic arguments.

rainbow walking · 07-16-2002, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny:


Hello RW,

If God exists, the argument is, indeed, sound, by the formal definition of “sound” given in most logic textbooks. Remember, all that is required for a an argument to be sound is that it be valid and that all its premises be true. As far as the first premise, “God exists or 2+2=5,” is concerned, recall that all that is required for an “or” disjunction to be true is that one of the disjuncts be true. If God exists, then “God exists or p” is true for any proposition one wishes to substitute for p. “Kenny exists or 2+2=5” is also true by this rule.

Of course, the argument I presented is entirely worthless as an argument for the existence of God. The warrant for the first premise, as far as I can tell, is entirely dependent on the warrant one has for believing in God in the first place and so the argument informally begs the question. The point I was making had nothing to do with coming up with a compelling argument for the existence of God. Rather, I was making a technical point about the definition of soundness in formal logic. What this shows is that Koy’s post and the point he is trying to make is in need of a great deal of clarification.

God Bless,
Kenny

The technicality also violates the intent of logic. The first proposition in P1 assumes the truth of god's existence to render the argument sound. Since the intent of such arguments are to establish the truth of god's existence to build the assumption of truth into a proposition violates the intent. Since 2+2=5 is not true and "god exists" is not logically established as true, only assumed so, the argument is not sound.

WJ · 07-16-2002, 04:01 AM

Slave!

Thanks, I think I'm following you. So it seems then to verify the assumptions behind a particular premise takes some other tool in order to make it 'sound'. What other tool would that be?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2002, 11:13 AM	#91
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Koy! I don't even understand the essence of what comprises an appropriate/'sound' argument? I think if I was logical, I'd surely be an atheist! So please Mr. logician, tell me more. Please tell me how I should think like an atheist and become perfectly logical, rational, and all the rest. Tell me what to believe or how to think better, thru this logic of yours. Help me break free from the bondage of Christianity. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

07-15-2002, 12:48 PM	#93
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	While I agree Koy often uses words in a, well, odd way (like saying to “know” does not constitute a “belief”, which goes against basically all of epistemology) , I think it’s pretty clear he expressed what a sound argument is clearly, so I’m confused why WJ keeps writing: “I don't even understand the essence of what comprises an appropriate/'sound' argument? I think if I was logical, I'd surely be an atheist! “ -Koy has already said several times what constitutes a sound argument (true premises and a valid logical structure). You seem to keep ignoring that. However, I agree, if you were logical you would probably be an atheist. Moving on, I think it’s unfair to take Koy to task on an empirical sound argument, since the majority of us (if not all of us) accept certain propositions as true. Playing the skeptic, while cute and everything, doesn’t get us anywhere (at least in this case). While we all can wonder “gee, is there really a cow out there?”, in the end all of us (at least it seems in this forum) proceed as if there are cows in the world, as well as the other things that make up our experiences. I mean, it would be very odd to deny this argument as sound: (1) Cows usually produce milk (2) Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O’Donnell are both cows. (3) Therefore, Oprah Winfrey and Rose O’Donnell probably produce milk. Assuming Oprah and Rosie are actual cows sitting on a farm, it seems (at least to me), this argument is sound, even though it’s an empirical one. Cows DO usually produce milk (especially if you don’t count the billions locked up in warehouses waiting to be slaughtered), and if we have two cows, it would follow they probably do give milk. As Koy pointed out, the main force of an argument like this is what we mean by the word “cow”. If “usually producing milk” is a common characteristic of a cow, the obviously, assuming Oprah and Rosie are cows of this type, it would follow they probably produce milk. I mean, let’s cut through the BS already. There are no 100% sound theistic arguments and there are no 100% sound atheistic arguments, since you can always doubt SOMETHING in all of them, and hence why the debate rages on. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not an atheist because I found one be all and end all atheistic argument, but rather because I think the arguments in favor of atheism outweigh those on the theism side.

07-15-2002, 01:34 PM	#94
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Atlantic/Koy! Yea I think Kenny pointed out this issue about 'soundness', but didn't hear it from Mr. Logician. It is funny though that the second part of my question gets no response... Nevertheless, it too is funny that I came to the exact opposite conclusion as I believe that the theist arguments outwayed the atheist. Imagine that one. Anyway, this kinda reminds me of the 'what's the point' thread, among many others... Can anyone help me think better? How can I free myself from that bondage of Christianity? Why do I believe what I believe? Help me, God exists?! HELP!

07-15-2002, 06:24 PM	#95
St. Robert Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 170	If anything exists, then God exists. Something cannot come from nothing.

07-15-2002, 07:30 PM	#97
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	"It is funny though that the second part of my question gets no response... Nevertheless, it too is funny that I came to the exact opposite conclusion as I believe that the theist arguments outwayed the atheist. Imagine that one." -The way to think more rationally is to study logic, since logic is the tool of rationality. You can do this by either purchasing or borrowing a book on logic, preferably Copi's book, which most agree is a good one on the topic. Flew has a book "How To Think Straight", which could help you in your quest to think better. Of course, you may think rationally without the use of any instruction. That you find theistic arguments to be better overall than atheistic ones is not surprising, especially considering you didn't know what constituted a sound argument. I am not aware, nor are most in here I imagine, of a single theistic argument that has any merit. Taken together in the leaky bucket approach, as Swinburne might do, doesn't help either, since theist arguments are so helpless there isn't even a bucket, just a big pool of water waiting to drown people in stupidity.

07-15-2002, 08:24 PM	#98
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I had in mind a concise statement of, say, the argument from evil, to prove the impossibility of a God with specific attributes- thus: 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Given 1. and 2. God is impossible. I've seen several arguments of this form; they require theists to re-define God (or evil) to disqualify them. My point was that arguments such as this are more valid (IMO) than any pro-theistic arguments.

07-16-2002, 04:01 AM	#100
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Slave! Thanks, I think I'm following you. So it seems then to verify the assumptions behind a particular premise takes some other tool in order to make it 'sound'. What other tool would that be?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.