Daggah

And why is "if something exists, then god exists" a valid assumption?

Oh wait, you're not attempting to prove that. You're just shifting from having faith in god's existence to having faith in god's existence if something exists.

You haven't proven anything. This logic is pathetic. Aquinas can do better and his logic is faulty too!

Silent Dave

It doesn't? Then what are the truth-conditions for your premises?


Dave

curbyIII

Since your argument does not assume that any of the premises are true until proven false (according to your previous post) then I am calling your lame-o argument into question.

I agree that the argument is valid. But you have not shown that Premise 1 true, therefore you have not shown that the argument is sound. So all you have shown us is an example of Modus Ponens. Well wupty-do, I already know what that is. So your entire post was pointless and annoying.

By the way, you contradicted yourself. First you said that you would "prove" God exists (the title of this thread) or give a "sound argument" that he does.

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

Then you said that every sound argument is an argument which follows from the premises AND has all true premises. So every sound argument must have true premises.

"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."

But then you go on to say that you would not prove Premise 1 (You want us to accept it on faith?).

"Some preliminary, anticipatory comments.

i) This argument is a proof that there is a God. It is not offered as a proof that (1), 'If something exists, then God exists'."

But if you don't prove premise 1 or show that it is true, then you haven't shown that your argument is sound and so you haven't proved your argument. So first you say you will prove God exists and then you refuse to do so. So which one are you doing?

Here is another example of your logic:

P1: If the author of this post exists, then the author of this post is God.
P2: The author of this post exists.
--------------------------------------------------
C: The author of this post is God.

The argument is valid. But I will not prove P1, because... er.... I don't feel like it.

KNEEL BEFORE YOUR GOD!

Schmecky

Ok.

I agree that your conclusion follows from your premises.

As you said, for this to be a sound argument, the premises must be true.

So... that leaves it completely up in the air as to whether your premises are true.

Were you even going to try to argue that your premises were true? I see no prima facie reason for accepting your first premise as true.


I could give you this proof:

If the earth is round, god is dead.
The earth is round.
Therefore, god is dead.


You wouldn't just accept that, would you? If I presented this argument, which one of us do you think would have the burden of proof here? I think you would expect me to give some sort of argument for my first premise. Likewise, we should expect you to justify your first premise.

anonymousj

All,

Argument P: A proof that I am in Pennsylvania.

1. If the State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital, then the State that I am in now is Pennsylvania.

2. The State that I am in now is the State with Harrisburg as its Capital.
----
3. The State I am in now is Pennsylvania.

The above argument P is, by the definition of proof that I offered at the beginning, a proof that I am in Pennsylvania. If you agree, then any objection that you offer against argument G, if it is also an objection against argument P must be a flawed objection.

cheers,

anonymousj

Automaton

Uhm. No. The reversed premise was "If something exists, then God doesn't exist," not a negation of the propostion that something exists.

Automaton

anonymousj, you are either one of the most insane people on the planet, or you are just trolling us for fun. I'm guessinging the latter, so cut it out.

anonymousj

Automaton,

I did not say that the reversed premise is the negation of my premise. I said, that given the truth of the antecedent, the two propositions cannot both be true. And that is true.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Schmecky,

You ask about burden of proof. If I want to show that this argument is not a proof, I must show that either one or more of the premises is false, the argument is invalid, or the notion of proof is mistaken.

cheers,

anonymousj

philechat

This is silly to the core. Your P1 assumes "all the something exists only after the existence of God". This assumption is not acceptable until you could prove such an assumption.

Good luck!