Scrutinizer

Yes indeed, you are correct. I was simply pointing out the formal validity of the syllogism, not its soundness --

1. pi is irrational.
2. Flying pigs are irrational.
3. Therefore flowers grow on Jupiter.

Since flowers don't grow on Jupiter, we can logically conclude that either pi isn't irrational or that flying pigs aren't irrational. Since it is obvious that pi is irrational, we are forced to conclude (by water-tight logical argumentation) that flying pigs are rational.

This discovery (that flying pigs are rational) is damaging to atheism, as per the following logical syllogism:

1. If God doesn't exist, flying pigs are irrational.
2. Flying pigs are rational.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Effectively, simply by understanding the botanical make-up of Jupiter we have come to discover that God exists by using formal logic and sound reasoning.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Scrutinizer ]</p>

HRG

The concept of a "necessary being" seems to be in conflict with the completeness of propositional calculus (Gödel 1930).

If G(x) = "x meets all criteria for being God", then "God exists" can be written as (Ex)G(x) (Ex = "there is an x such that", aka existential quantor). If this is true in all conceivable worlds, then (Ex) G(x) is a tautology and thus derivable from the axioms of logic. No such derivation exists.

Regards,
HRG.

Foxhole Atheist

Hey, tronvillain. Lighten up. The whole thing, I believe, was presented “tongue–in-cheek”. Quite possibly I guess, we should only display a sense of humor in the Humor Forum.

GunnerJ

Ah, but Scrutinizer, you can't prove that no flowers (or flora of any kind) grow on Jupiter, because it is a negative claim!

tronvillain

Ah yes, the "only joking" defense. I've never been a fan.

Kenny

While I’m no expert in propositional calculus, I don’t believe this objection hits the mark. At any rate, if it does, then <a href="http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html" target="_blank">Godel himself</a> failed to pick up on it.

This seems to be where the problem lies. You assume that the only necessary truths are tautologies, but that’s really just begging the question in favor of the conclusion that it is impossible for there to be other types of necessities, such as necessary being. In fact, it seems to me that the assertion that the only necessary truths are tautologies is substantially weakened by Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Mathematical theorems are usually regarded as necessary truths (though some philosophers dispute this), and mathematics can’t be reduced to the axioms of formal logic. Personally, it also seems highly counter-intuitive to me that mathematical truths are nothing more than mere tautologies. Do amazing and surprising facts such as Pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 +1/9... really boil down to nothing more than A=A?

God Bless,
Kenny

Scrutinizer

Rimstalker,

Ordinarily that would be true. However, as Kenny pointed out, flowers growing on Jupiter is a logical impossibility since it would entail the existence of blue unicorns.

You might ask how we know that no blue unicorns exist simply because we have only experienced pink ones, but blue unicorns are quite simply an incoherent concept:

1) The definition of "unicorn" is an animal with a horse's body and a single straight horn.

2) The sky is blue.

3) Therefore, unicorns cannot be blue by definition.

Since unicorns cannot be blue by definition, flowers growing on Jupiter has been ruled out as a possibility from the outset even though we haven't searched the entirety of Jupiter.

Following the logical syllogisms used in my previous post, we can conclude in a water-tight manner that God exists.

Q.E.D.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Gurdur

Agreed.

Foxhole Atheist

Tronvillain:

I see your point. Please pardon my foolishness.

GunnerJ

Ah, but you see, your definition of blue is invalid when discussing unicorns. Since the unicorn's colors are above our colors we cannot tell with certainty what their color is. However, I do have another valid line of reasoning that contradicts yours:

1) My dog is a Jack-Russel terrier
2) J-RTs are not blue
3) Unicorns are not J-RTs
4) Ergo, unicorns are blue. QED.

See if you can counter my irrefutable logic!