Goliath

Jobar,

Weak atheism, as a lack of belief, needs no argument, since it doesn't entail any claims regarding the supernatural.

Sincerely,

Goliath

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

AtlanticCitySlave

Obviously if the majority of us are atheists we wouldn't know of any sound theistic arguments, hence why we're atheists. There are plenty of valid theistic arguments, but there is obviously no sound theistic one that rational people can all say "that's a very good argument". Likewise, Christian philosophers (and others) obviously think there are no sound atheistic arguments as well.
I really must go into the SOMMS camp on this one and agree that this entire thread is pretty much a waste.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

"Thinking" that a statement is true is irrelevant to what I was getting at, which is why I took pains to delineate "knowing" and "believing," however colloquial that distinction turns out to be, as Clutch pointed out.

Perhaps we should be applying Topos theory here .

Regardless, as I thought I clarified, the point I was making was that no theist should go anywhere near formal logic (either in syllogism or in the use of the terminology) as WJ's pointless tripe readily demonstrates.

Logic and theism are apples and oranges.

Koyaanisqatsi

Right around the same time you stopped beating your wife. When was that again?

Koyaanisqatsi

I do not. An argument is either sound or it is not, regardless of what others "see." That's the purpose of formal logic.

Koyaanisqatsi

A cow excreting liquid from its udders is a defining characteristic of what it means to call something a "cow," yes?

Therefore, it can be argued, to even call something a cow is to ipso facto consent to the fact that it excretes liquid from its udders as a defining characteristic.

Which is also why we have the word "bull" to define a creature like a cow, but does not have such a function.

The definition of "God" however, does not necessarily entail "Creator of the universe." There are many gods with many different functions, none of which can be demonstrated to be true as a necessary adjunct to that definition.

Thus it is necessarily true to state, "Cows excrete liquid from their udders," yet not necessarily true to state "God created the universe."

Nor does it have to be, except to the pointlessly pedantic among us, which is why I mistakenly started in on Clutch regarding what I thought to be a whiff of solipsism, an utterly ( ) pointless exercise in mental masturbation.

Perhaps I was right about applying Topos theory after all?

Not in the slightest. In fact, it affirms it by describing precisely how it is that my premise was true.

Indeed, since the game was to demonstrate why formal logic is so often misused and abused by theists, you're right, but to the wrong opponent, of course.

Atheists, too, no doubt (and clearly myself, as Clutch pointed out) misuse and abuse it, but by far and away the game, set and match goes to "us."

You can't use the rules of logic in your favor only when they suit your needs and then turn around and say, "nobody can know anything is true" whenever it doesn't.

Either you accept that there is a "knowable" truth (and define it however you wish) or you do not.

If you do not, then never use any of the terms or rules of formal logic, since the entire purpose of logic is to establish a means to test the objectivity of truth claims, yes?

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Odemus

Oh, yes mr. Odemus, that's a sound point.It's just that it needs to be ignored at all costs.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

Tom Piper

Koyaanisqatsi,

Let me try again, since judging from your answer, I don't think you anwered the question I was trying to ask.

I asked You said So, if someone produces an argument that she/he claims to be sound, the mere fact that you (Koyaanisqatsi) don't believe one, or more, of the premises (to be true) doesn't, in itself, show anything about the soundness of the argument.

All of this stuff was covered in another rather long discussion in this forum about a proof for the existence of God.

Kenny, just above, said How about some further description/characterization of what it is you want in addition to mere soundness--- so that such efforts might be said to succeed even if they don't 'convince you' that there is a God.

Or is that what this challenge is about-- the production of a sound argument that convinces Koyaanisqatsi that the conclusion is true?

Tom Piper

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
Me: Aha...you've your argument now retreats to a plea of empirical evidence.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Koy...I have made no claim whatsoever. You have.

Have you even been reading this thread? Here's a quick synopsis...


YOU: Does anybody know of a sound proof for 'God'?
(implied: I only believe things I have proof for.)

ME :Uh...no. And your kidding yourself if you only believe things you logically prove. There is not even a sound proof for 'milk'.

YOU:Uh huh. Here's a proof for 'milk'!
&lt;some proof that requires empirical evidence&gt;

ME :Uh...no. Your argument reduces to a plea from empirical evidience. As such it can't be a 'sound' proof (which is what you are asking for God) where all premesis are known to be true.

YOU:No! That is what you claim!


ME :

Sheesh.

SOMMS

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>