Freethought & Rationalism Archive

anonymousj · 05-01-2002, 09:50 AM

BLoggins02,

Thanks for the patience and the explanation. The notation you used is not familiar to me, so, coupled with your comments in the post in which the argument originally appeared, I misunderstood the thrust of this demonstration.

However, now the point of this demonstration is not clear to me. However, I must quit for the time being, but I will return to make my lack of understanding about your point more specific.

cheers,

anonymousj

BibleBelted · 05-01-2002, 10:27 AM

anonymousj = WJ

no syllogism required

Mageth · 05-01-2002, 10:42 AM

One might refer to aj's argument as the "I say so" argument.

If I say so, God exists.
I say so.
Therefore God exists.

On a slightly different tack, since "something" in 1) could refer to god (I'm assuming God is "something"), aj's argument could be rewritten:

Argument GeeWhiz: A proof that God exists.

1. If God exists, then God exists.

2. God exists.
----
3. God exists.

BLoggins02 · 05-01-2002, 10:46 AM

anon:

My point was simply this-

You asserted P->Q, I asserted P->~Q. Using these, we can 'prove' anything we like either way, except neither of us is under any obligation to accept the other's first premise.

Actually, I would state that P->(Qv~Q), because I don't believe "something exists" implies anything about God existing or not.

You say we must accept your first premise, but if the only reason we must accept your first premise is because of the conclusion of the argument in which the premise is made, that is called begging the question.

This is the crux of it: you're going to have to show us that we must accept your conditional axiom.

Example, say you were able to show:

x, y, z |- P->Q

(where x, y, and z are some statements, |- means "therefore" and P->Q means what it has in your previous posts). Obiously, you can't use P->Q to prove P->Q, because it's vacuously true- a tautology.

So, come up with a reason we must accept P->Q and then you'll have something.

Theli · 05-01-2002, 11:23 AM

anonymousj...

Quote:

In order to show that this is not a proof, one must either show that one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid, or that the notion of proof it satisfies is, in some way, deficient.

Well, I would go directly to point one in your argument...

Quote:

1. If something exists, then God exists.

First of all you use the word "god", wich you haven't given any attributes to except for possibly a name ("the christian god"), wich makes the word itself of little meaning.

Then you also use the word "something" indicating that for "something" to exist your unspecified christian "god" must exist.
Now, I don't know if your "something" involve "god" or not (you haven't specified that either).

(1)If it does then how could "god" come into existence if it require it's own existence to be?
It simply came into existence by itself while creating the rest of "something".
This argument makes your "god" unneccessary.
"Something" could just come into existence by it's own.

(2)If it is not then please specify why "god" simply can come into existence uncaused while "something" cannot.

The fact that your "proof" requires proof of it's own to even prove it's first premise makes me wonder if you're not building this argument on quicksand.
If your argument is sound, it can be attributed to everything you give the name "god" to, even me.

"I (god) created the universe" would be just as true as "The christian god created the universe".

List such attributes that would put "god" in the unique position of not requiring a creator.
Attributes that the universe cannot/did not have.

Clutch · 05-01-2002, 12:10 PM

Well, *howdy*, anonymous!

Godless Dave, Schmecky, and now Bill Sneddon have successively KO'd you. In each case you've responded with silence, evasion and/or unreasoned denial.

Your argument is valid. But there is no reason to accept your Premise 1 as true. Hence there is no reason to accept your conclusion as true. Hence your claim that this is a proof is plain wrong.

Will you address this obvious point? Otherwise, and as things now stand, you appear to simply to be a time-waster.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

philechat · 05-01-2002, 12:32 PM

Anonymousj

Yes, if premise 1 is true then your conclusion is true. However, you must first show me that your premise 1 is true.

"If something exists, then God exists."
Here is my interpretion of your implied statement in your premise 1: "Something exist if and only if (the Christian) God exists". Without this implied statement your premise 1 will be non-sensical, as many people have pointed out (Koy: "if something exist, then Vishnu exists" JC: "if something exist, then cows can fly" will all qualify as valid statements for premise 1, if such statement was not made)

The term "Something exist if and only if the Christian God exist" means that if God (A) exists, then something (B) exists--(logical terms "A -> B"). The "only if" part limits the possibilities that C, such as Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, or unknown natural cause could also lead to B. Logical terms "~A -> ~B". That is, the implied statement "Something exist if and only if Christian God exist" (as indicated in your premise 1) means "If God exists (A), then something exists (B). If God does not exist (~A), then something does not exist (~B)".

And therefore, to prove that your premise 1 is true, you must prove the implied statement "Something exist if and only if the Christian God exists", that is:
1. If the Christian God exists, then something exists (A -> B)
2. If the Christian God does not exist, then something does not exist (~A -> ~B)

If such a statement could not be proved, then premise 1 is not shown to be true.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

Ender · 05-01-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Ender, previously: How does it follow that "God exist"?
AnonymousJ: Are you questioning the validity of the argument? If not, then what?

Of course, the structure of the syllogism is valid. But I am questioning how does it follow that if �something exists� (which is a trivial generic observation of anything) to something specific, that �god exists?� This feeble leap is grounds for my question- why does it follow?

Quote:

Ender, previously: How does (whatever your answer is) not include these concepts: "Zeus" or "Vishnu" or "Baal" or "square root of negative one" or "Eros" or "quintessential force"?
AnonymousJ:???? No idea of what you are talking about here.

That was my follow-up question to whatever your answer was to why you arbitrarily chose �god.� Would your reasons for the word �God� apply to any of the above fictions? Why or why not?

Quote:

Ender, previously: It sounds like an illegal existential quantifier shift, similar to what the Bishop Berkeley did with his arguments against materialism.
AnonymousJ: Well, it isn't! If you think so, show how, please!

First things first.

~WiGGiN~

Ender · 05-01-2002, 01:03 PM

Quote:

AnonymousJ: Can you focus your objection a little more clearly, please! About the only thing I can thinnk of to say here is that the argument merely demonstrates the existence of God, not the necessary existence, but I am not sure that this is even relevant to your objection.

What�s so unclear about it? It patently shows that the negation of a matter of fact statement is not contradictory, unlike a tautology.

�A dog exists� is a statement of fact, a synthetic statement known through experience- and consequently, not a necessary truth, but a contingent one.

~WiGGiN~

rainbow walking · 05-01-2002, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
With authors of logic texts, let us understand a sound argument to be an argument with all true premises in which the conclusion follows from the premises.

Then, let us hold that a sound argument for Pis a proof that P.

"God" will refer to the Christian God.

Argument G: A proof that God exists.

1. If something exists, then God exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. God exists.

Some preliminary, anticipatory comments.

i) This argument is a proof that there is a God. It is notoffered as a proof that (1), 'If something exists, then God exists'.

ii) It is not part of the definition of 'proof' here that every premise in the argument must be proved (this would be a condition on proof that couldn't be satisfied anywhere, and hence, it is a reductioon this as a conditon on 'proof').

iii) In order to show that this is not a proof, one must either show that one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid, or that the notion of proof it satisfies is, in some way, deficient. One can, of course, stipulate any notion of proof that one likes. The above notion is, intuitively speaking, what most seem to have in mind.

This should get things going!

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

Hi anonymous,
Your argument does not prove the christian God exists. It only proves that you can use terms like god, something and exists to formulate a sound argument. Hardly an impressive feat.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]

05-01-2002, 12:10 PM	#46
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Well, howdy, anonymous! Godless Dave, Schmecky, and now Bill Sneddon have successively KO'd you. In each case you've responded with silence, evasion and/or unreasoned denial. Your argument is valid. But there is no reason to accept your Premise 1 as true. Hence there is no reason to accept your conclusion as true. Hence your claim that this is a proof is plain wrong. Will you address this obvious point? Otherwise, and as things now stand, you appear to simply to be a time-waster. [ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

05-01-2002, 12:32 PM	#47
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Anonymousj Yes, if premise 1 is true then your conclusion is true. However, you must first show me that your premise 1 is true. "If something exists, then God exists." Here is my interpretion of your implied statement in your premise 1: "Something exist if and only if (the Christian) God exists". Without this implied statement your premise 1 will be non-sensical, as many people have pointed out (Koy: "if something exist, then Vishnu exists" JC: "if something exist, then cows can fly" will all qualify as valid statements for premise 1, if such statement was not made) The term "Something exist if and only if the Christian God exist" means that if God (A) exists, then something (B) exists--(logical terms "A -> B"). The "only if" part limits the possibilities that C, such as Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, or unknown natural cause could also lead to B. Logical terms "~A -> ~B". That is, the implied statement "Something exist if and only if Christian God exist" (as indicated in your premise 1) means "If God exists (A), then something exists (B). If God does not exist (~A), then something does not exist (~B)". And therefore, to prove that your premise 1 is true, you must prove the implied statement "Something exist if and only if the Christian God exists", that is: 1. If the Christian God exists, then something exists (A -> B) 2. If the Christian God does not exist, then something does not exist (~A -> ~B) If such a statement could not be proved, then premise 1 is not shown to be true. [ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

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

05-01-2002, 09:50 AM	#41
anonymousj Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 66	BLoggins02, Thanks for the patience and the explanation. The notation you used is not familiar to me, so, coupled with your comments in the post in which the argument originally appeared, I misunderstood the thrust of this demonstration. However, now the point of this demonstration is not clear to me. However, I must quit for the time being, but I will return to make my lack of understanding about your point more specific. cheers, anonymousj

05-01-2002, 10:27 AM	#42
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	anonymousj = WJ no syllogism required

05-01-2002, 10:42 AM	#43
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	One might refer to aj's argument as the "I say so" argument. If I say so, God exists. I say so. Therefore God exists. On a slightly different tack, since "something" in 1) could refer to god (I'm assuming God is "something"), aj's argument could be rewritten: Argument GeeWhiz: A proof that God exists. 1. If God exists, then God exists. 2. God exists. ---- 3. God exists.

05-01-2002, 10:46 AM	#44
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	anon: My point was simply this- You asserted P->Q, I asserted P->~Q. Using these, we can 'prove' anything we like either way, except neither of us is under any obligation to accept the other's first premise. Actually, I would state that P->(Qv~Q), because I don't believe "something exists" implies anything about God existing or not. You say we must accept your first premise, but if the only reason we must accept your first premise is because of the conclusion of the argument in which the premise is made, that is called begging the question. This is the crux of it: you're going to have to show us that we must accept your conditional axiom. Example, say you were able to show: x, y, z \|- P->Q (where x, y, and z are some statements, \|- means "therefore" and P->Q means what it has in your previous posts). Obiously, you can't use P->Q to prove P->Q, because it's vacuously true- a tautology. So, come up with a reason we must accept P->Q and then you'll have something.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.