Koyaanisqatsi

I'm going to have to go with TheGreatInfidel on this, but watch you're f*cking tone, you newbie punk .

Just kidding. Sort of.

I see what fishbulb is reaching for and I see your didactic counter.

Do you, however, see what fishbulb is reaching for and grant that an assertion in formal logic does not necessarily equate with a "truth" state inherent in the premises' claim?

You spoke of counter examples. I am a writer (as are, evidently, you). I think of what it is I wish to communicate and then utilize matter in order to create it in the form you are now viewing it. I also write screenplays. I think of what you will eventually see sitting in a theatre.

Now, although it can be argued that my thought processes are the result of physicality (ala, your first premise) and that my thoughts are no more than chemical interactions, it can also be argued that the thoughts are more than the mere sum of the physical processing; that they are a meta culmination of chemical interactions, which, if not entirely separate, are at least symbiotic (i.e., duality), thus they could be considered to be non-physical; dependent upon physicality for their dualistic "existence," but not necessarily physical in form or function.

It wouldn't be, necessarily, that they are non-physical, just that they may be "not necessarily physical." Not necessarily the same as non-physical, due to duality.

"Time," for example, is arguably "not necessarily physical." It may be dependent upon phsyicality for it to have any experiencial meaning, but it does not necessarily have to be physical to exist, yes? Time is a measurement; purely abstract and although the "concept of time" is, indeed, stored in a physical manner in our brains, does it necessarily exist only in a physical manner in our brains?

If so, then how could I transfer such a physicality to your brain? If the "concept of time" is nothing more than a chemical, physical qaulity that exists in the memory storage section of my brain, then how do I transfer that chemical, physical quality into your brain? Through sound waves? When I speak (or write or create a movie) am I physically transferring the chemicals (or, let's go deeper; the electrons, quarks, leptons, have at it) across those sound waves and through the manipulation of my hands to type and paint and point a camera, etc., into your brain?

Or is there something not necessarily physical going on?

Now, obviously, you can addend "as we know it" to that question, but I think I've made the point fishbulb was reaching for (correct me if I'm wrong and don't expect me to defend you again if you're a theist ).

If you can't establish the negation of the notion that there can exist something that may not be necessarily physical, yet still dependent upon physicality, then how can you establish the positive claim that nothing non-physical exists in any meaningful way, outside of formal, logical construction (and yes, I realize I've asked you to prove a negative, but only to illustrate what I think fishbulb is reaching for in his/her position that I think is at least valid enough for a direct response bereft of the posturing).

Again, if I may, it would seem to me that fishbulb's position could be summed up in the following:

Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Answer: The idea of the chicken and the egg.

As I've throughly enjoyed your posts so far (unnecessary vitriol aside), I'd enjoy your deconstruction of this fallacy, too.

If, that is, you can relax a little and realize that not everyone is out to attack you personally when we assail your arguments.

fishbulb

I don't recall trying to make any such point. Unfortuntately, these threads tend to degenerate into trying to re-state the same thing in different ways, and the original idea can easily get lost or sidetracked.

My position can, I think, be summed up thusly:

The deductive argument is simply a logical prediction that if (premises) then (conclusion). As a formal structure, valid arguments are trivial to construct. But, by themselves, they tell us nothing about the real world, because there is no way within the argument itself to verify either that the premises are true or that the conclusion is true. We must ultimately verify either the conclusion (which does not prove the premises, but it may lend support to them) or the premises (which would imply that the conclusion is true, though we would usually want to verify this as well) and this requires looking somewhere other than the internal logic of our syllogism.

TheGreatInfidel's argument takes the same form as the cosmological argument and the other classic "proofs" of god. They all take the premises as axiomatic; there is no way to actually verify that any of their premises are right. Moreover, there is no way to verify that the conlcusion is right, which could lend support to the premises if it were shown to be true (though by itself, it does not prove that they are).

The reason mathematics is useful is because its abstract axioms map to real-world applications. There is no such thing as a "3" or a "2", or a "1", so 3 - 2 = 1 is an abstract equation. But it just so happens that if I have three cookies and eat two, I will have one cookie left. The abstract system can be used to make a prediction about the real world which can then be verified. Can an axiomatic, abstract proof of the existence or non existence of god make a prediction about the real world that can be verified? If not, then why bother with the proof?

TheGreatInfidel

THis is how it works. A conclusion may necessarily follow from a set of premises. That's what we call a valid argument. But a valid argument need not be a sound argument.
A sound argument is a valid argument who's premises are true. Premise is another word for evidence.

I think that what you guys are trying to say is that although my argument is valid, it isn't sound. But You guys have a very weird way of doing it. (Now, if you guys are odds with their being any truth to a sound argument's conclusion. )

I did see fishbulb's point. But his choice of words openned whole new cans of very severe worms . I don't want to get into it. Otherwise you'll have me here all day.

TheGreatInfidel

Your message smacks of ignorance of what a deductive argument is suppose to do or even is. I'm not going to take it upon myself to educate you. I don't have time for you.