irichc

I challenge anyone to refute the following syllogism. I'm asking for a logical refutation. Logic is always true, while experience can be based on partial or fallacious appreciations.

* * *

Syllogism #1:

Everything which is still is always uncaused.
Nothing is still in the Universe.
Nothing is uncaused in the Universe.

Prosyllogism a sensu contrario (tertius non datur):

Everything which is mobile is always caused.
Everything is mobile in the Universe.
Everything is caused in the Universe.

Syllogism #2:

Every multiple thing is divisible.
Every caused phenomenon is multiple*.
Every caused phenomenon is divisible.

Prosyllogism:

Every caused phenomenon is divisible.
Everything is caused in the Universe.
Everything is divisible in the Universe.

Daniel.

* As far as it implies two or more things.

Spanish version:

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria&msg=2000

Silent Acorns

The problem with your syllogisms is not their logic, it is the fact that many of the premesis are highly debatable:

S1) Everything which is still is always uncaused.
PS1) Everything which is mobile is always caused.
S2) Every caused phenomenon is multiple.
PS2) Every caused phenomenon is divisible.
PS2) Everything is caused in the Universe.

None of these are ovbiously true, or true by definition such as:

all cats are mammels

Your logic is no differnet from saying:

1) All things are caused
2) The Universe is the sum of all things
Therefore, the universe is caused.

There is nothing here but blatent circular reasoning.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I, too, question your premises.

The following are nothing more than unsupported claims, hardly the proper place from whence to begin a rational inquiry.

1. Everything which is still is always uncaused.
2. Everything which is mobile is always caused.
3. Every multiple thing is divisible.

(As to the above, what is a 'multiple thing'? 'Thing', in your example, is singular, yet you claim a 'multiple' thing. This is, IMO, not only a false premise, but also a non-sequitur.)

--and--

4. Every caused phenomenon is divisible.

Keith.

Feather

In addition to the objections of the previous posters, I'd like to add an objection to the statement "logic is always true."

A sound logic argument is always consistent, by definition. Whether or not the conclusions there reached are "true" is another matter. They are "true" only in the context of the argument and not necessarily in the more general context of what is "true" in "reality."

I can't agree with your assertion that experience is "less true" than logic, and therefore--even though you know a few latin terms and can construct a visually and mentally appealing argument--must disagree with any conclusion that follows from it.

Hence my objections also to your other premises.

irichc

#1. How can you imagine something still and at the same time caused? It will mean that there can be causes without their effects (in that case, i'll call them pseudo-causes). I assume that any effect involves movement.

#2. That follows from #1 a sensu contrario. "Tertius non datur" means that there aren't more logical options, only two. If #2 is false, then #1 is false too. But I have proved that #1 is true, so etc.

#3. "Multiple" means composed at least by two elements. Thus, divisibility goes in its own notion.

Daniel.

Silent Acorns

Note the bold lettering, Daniel. You ASSUMED that effect involves movement. You haven't proven anything.

Biff the unclean

Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction the created "things" must have been put into motion through exerted force to over come their inertia. Which would require motion on the part of the creator as well as the created. Therefore a creator cannot be itself uncreated as the very act of creation necessitates movement.

irichc

What is an effect then?

Daniel.

irichc

You are wondering about the relation between the first cause and the agent (God), which can't be causal, but created ex nihilo.

Daniel.

Silent Acorns

You are the one who is claiming that "everything that is still is uncaused". Your proof? You claim that this would violate cause and effect. How so? Because you assume that effect and movement are synonymous.

So this is your logic:

1) Assume that movement and effect are synonymous
2) therefore all effect involves movement
3) effect implies cause
4) therefore movement implies cause
5) still things don't move
6) therefore still things are not effects
7) therefore still things are not caused

The problem is that (by your own admission) you assume that effect involves movement, and therefore this is not a proof of anything.