For Those Who Believe in God:

EdwardNortonFan
Posts: 34
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
For Those Who Believe in God:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
Oh Lisa!!

 

 

 

             I have found that true believers seldom if ever read, I am not sure any of them can. Their god thingy was welded into their heads at an early age and any question after that has a simple answer;  goddidit.  Please pray for they.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
God is omnipotent, but lazy.

God is omnipotent, but lazy. Why do you ask? Also, he's pretty damned apathetic. He'd like to care, but just can't bring himself to do so.

Apropos of nothing, he also like porters, pinot noirs, cognac, stouts, IPAs, and chardonnays. Just in case you're thinking of his birthday, which is coming up. Oh, and a good scotch won't be dismissed out-of-hand (though he's very particular).

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Omniscience

So far as I can tell is an impossibility.

I don't expect the godly will take you up on this one Ednortonfan.

It's going to call for lateral thinking...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Christian_Apologist
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-10-16
User is offlineOffline
EdwardNortonFan wrote:I have

EdwardNortonFan wrote:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 

He is.

There is nothing that God cannot do except that which goes against His nature. God alone has the power to conquer sin and death. He even created Satan who disobeyed and fell, therefore, He has power over him. He promised to give us the power to overcome he that is in the world.

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog13.htm

God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. He knows when we do things for the wrong reasons and when we do things for the right reasons.

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Christian_Apologist wrote:He

Christian_Apologist wrote:

He is.

There is nothing that... [SNIP]

 

You were asked what you though, not what you've been brainwashed to think.

Try, for once, to answer for yourself.

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
All right, I'm probably

All right, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll bite:

Of course I believe God is omnipotent and omniscient. Go ahead and dazzle me with your follow-up question. I have a feeling I may have heard it before.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you think that god

Quote:
Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

Yes to both the aforementioned.

EDIT: Show us your retardio ad infinitum.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
EdwardNortonFan wrote:I have

EdwardNortonFan wrote:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 

 

No. Now, I'll wait while you look that up on Google.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I've often thought of

I've often thought of omniscience and what it would imply. Informally:

1. A being (possibly human) "knows" something intuitively - artificial omniscience (it could be taught/told by another being).

2. A being (possibly human) can find out something by experience - apparent omniscience (time travel).

3. A being (non-human) knows everything inherently - omniscient.

Outside this set, all three would generally be indistinguishable from one another. IOW, we have no way of knowing which is which if something all-knowing came along. The third being can not be physical as far as I can tell, I may be wrong though.

 

Just some food for thought to kick the debate along a bit.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
EdwardNortonFan wrote:Do you

EdwardNortonFan wrote:


Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 

I want to play. The answer is yes. 


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
The answer is yes, but with

The answer is yes, but with this caveat: both terms must be properly understood. (1) S is omniscient iff for every proposition P, S knows P's truth value. (Yes, this does mean that an omniscient being wouldn't posses all non-propositional knowledge, but this isn't a defect, since to possess all non-propositional knowledge would entail accepting as true a host of inconsistencies.) (2) S is omnipotent iff S can bring about any logically consistent state of affairs. (Yes, this does mean that there are things an omnipotent being cannot do, not because he lacks the power to do so, but because not all states of affairs we can put into words are meaningful.)

Edejardin


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 Is God all powerful

 Is God all powerful yes!

Does God no the outcome or what your future is? He knows you will make choices in your life and if you chose to follow Him or not, I suspect He then will know your fate upon the day of Judgement. But He doesn't force you into that position you chose your path He choses your fate!

Does He know prior to your life here on Earth what you would do? You have to ask God your self because we can't speak for Him on your outcome. That's between you and your CREATOR.

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Proof please, leggy blonde

 

All these bold opinions have nothing whatever to do with reality. You are doing nothing more than splashing around dogma.

Please offer me unequivocal evidence that is not contained in the gospels or josephus that Jesus even existed.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ill bite on this one , yes i

ill bite on this one , yes i believe (of my own free will , my parents never went to church) that god is capable of both. as for proof outside of josephus, why present what you wont listen to?


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Please offer me unequivocal evidence that is not contained in the gospels or Josephus that Jesus even existed.

Please show me that you have a competent understanding of the historical method, particularly when it comes to analyzing ancient history. Or else the discussion becomes the equivalent of explaining evolution to a creationist with barely a grade school understanding of the sciences. 

 

 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:All these bold

Quote:
All these bold opinions have nothing whatever to do with reality. You are doing nothing more than splashing around dogma.

Please offer me unequivocal evidence that is not contained in the gospels or josephus that Jesus even existed.

Not intended for me I'm guessing? Or really even relevant to the OP? Last I heard, we were debating omni-attributes.

***

Where is the follow-up, bombshell response from ednortonfan? She/it has vamooshed! (Due to insufficient evidence to the contrary, I bet...)
 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I'll probably regret this

I'll probably regret this too, but before you start talking about what this thing can do, shouldn't you prove it exists first ?


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'll probably regret

Quote:
I'll probably regret this too, but before you start talking about what this thing can do, shouldn't you prove it exists first ?

Well, it depends on how you approach the argument. If you interpret it as a "thing" that can do y, then yes. I interpret it as a hypothetical: if x were to obtain, then y (p --> q); therefore the answer is no.

The difference is (not p therrefor not q) is a fallacy, whereas X has property y, can be sound or unsound/proven or disproven etc.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote: I

jumbo1410 wrote:

 I interpret it as a hypothetical

Ah, right. Thank you for clearing that up.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve

theTwelve wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Please offer me unequivocal evidence that is not contained in the gospels or Josephus that Jesus even existed.

Please show me that you have a competent understanding of the historical method, particularly when it comes to analyzing ancient history. Or else the discussion becomes the equivalent of explaining evolution to a creationist with barely a grade school understanding of the sciences. 

 

God knows why you even bother to talk to us, 12. It's obvious you're the only one here with half a brain and I should not expect evidence of the existence of god that's not contained in the NT or a deliberate fabrication.

What I'd like is not outrageous. How about multiple sources all from the same time, not derived from one another, whose authors could be verified. And how about sources whose goal is not the propagation of the cult?

I don't think we can say the books of the NT count as independent sources, nor could we categorically say they are eyewitness accounts. We have Jesus alone, talking in his head to god. We have jesus talking to satan when alone. Who witnessed these things? Can we say the NT is confirmed even in some of its parts by external authority?

Aside from the glittering fabrication in Eusebius' personal copy of Josephus we cannot.

 

And another thing 12 - instead of putting your balls on the line you just bitch and moan. Why not try leading by example for a change?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice side step PM9347

pm9347 wrote:

ill bite on this one , yes i believe (of my own free will , my parents never went to church) that god is capable of both. as for proof outside of josephus, why present what you wont listen to?

 

And it saves you from bothering with those slippery 'references' in Tacitus, doesn't it.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Surely EJ

edejardin wrote:

The answer is yes, but with this caveat: both terms must be properly understood. (1) S is omniscient iff for every proposition P, S knows P's truth value. (Yes, this does mean that an omniscient being wouldn't posses all non-propositional knowledge, but this isn't a defect, since to possess all non-propositional knowledge would entail accepting as true a host of inconsistencies.) (2) S is omnipotent iff S can bring about any logically consistent state of affairs. (Yes, this does mean that there are things an omnipotent being cannot do, not because he lacks the power to do so, but because not all states of affairs we can put into words are meaningful.)

You'd have to concede omniscience, as it was originally understood or intended, is simply not possible? Why even describe god as omniscient?

Does god need to be omniscient for the purposes of his role as creator?

For god to be seen as omnipotent you'd like to see evidence of him doing anything he damn well pleased around the place. Do you see this evidence outside your own life?

You say you believe in an omnipotent god - do you also believe in an interventionist god? If so, how do you feel about a god who can do anything to resolve problems on his earth but does nothing?

Is he not omnipotent? Is he not loving? Or is he just - not?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


EdwardNortonFan
Posts: 34
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I've been gone with some

I've been gone with some personal issues for several days now. I don't have time to read all of your responses, but I will take the time soon and respond.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:I'll

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
I'll probably regret this too, but before you start talking about what this thing can do, shouldn't you prove it exists first ?

Well, it depends on how you approach the argument. If you interpret it as a "thing" that can do y, then yes. I interpret it as a hypothetical: if x were to obtain, then y (p --> q); therefore the answer is no.

The difference is (not p therrefor not q) is a fallacy, whereas X has property y, can be sound or unsound/proven or disproven etc.

Thought I better clear up a point here:

(not p therefore not q) is no more a fallacy that (p thefore q) - the truth value of either statement depends on the definition of p and q.

if  p = not a, and q = not b, then (not p therfore not q) is precisely equivalent to (a thefore b).

Thanks for demonstrating so concisely that you don't actually understand formal logic.

Hardly surprising, since your informal logic sucks....

Informally, to pick a random example, if some entity were to be defined such that its presence was supposed to be apparent from every place on earth, and we saw no evidence of it, then it would be valid to say that a widespread failure to detect it would prove that no such entity exists. 

Get it?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonkles
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-04-17
User is offlineOffline
EdwardNortonFan wrote:I have

EdwardNortonFan wrote:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 

 

I'll play.. This should be fun.. Yes

 

And why would I need to look it up on google... oh a childish insult.. we'z all be usum sum stupid cus wez believe in teh god


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
How about we pull the bee sting out of this one

 

And agree that ENF is asking whether believers think god can do anything and is everywhere?

Where we go from there is up to us but please let it be somewhere entertaining.

How about this. Given christians do believe god knows everything that it's reasonable for a god to know without

this being self defeating - do you think god is active in the world? And do you have any examples whether personal

or general you can share?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Thought I better clear

Quote:
Thought I better clear up a point here:

(not p therefore not q) is no more a fallacy that (p thefore q) - the truth value of either statement depends on the definition of p and q.

if  p = not a, and q = not b, then (not p therfore not q) is precisely equivalent to (a thefore b).

Thanks for demonstrating so concisely that you don't actually understand formal logic.

Hardly surprising, since your informal logic sucks....

Informally, to pick a random example, if some entity were to be defined such that its presence was supposed to be apparent from every place on earth, and we saw no evidence of it, then it would be valid to say that a widespread failure to detect it would prove that no such entity exists. 

Get it?

 

Are you retarded, or drunk? Or both?

(not p therefore not q) is the fromal fallacy of denying the antecedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

An example would be (if Aristotle jumped off a skyscraper then he would die)

He has not jumped off a skyscraper

---

He is not dead

 

In logical form:

If p then q

not p

---

not q

 

In the original, If omniscience did exist Then it would have such and such attributes...

Saying omniscience does not exist therefore we cannot discuss it is a fallacy.

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Are you

jumbo1410 wrote:

Are you retarded, or drunk? Or both?

(not p therefore not q) is the fromal fallacy of denying the antecedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

An example would be (if Aristotle jumped off a skyscraper then he would die)

He has not jumped off a skyscraper

---

He is not dead

In logical form:

If p then q

not p

---

not q

In the original, If omniscience did exist Then it would have such and such attributes...

Saying omniscience does not exist therefore we cannot discuss it is a fallacy. 

Read more carefully. He's not assuming a conditional, if P then Q.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Read more carefully.

Quote:
Read more carefully. He's not assuming a conditional, if P then Q. 

??

No, I was...

Quote:
I'll probably regret this too, but before you start talking about what this thing can do, shouldn't you prove it exists first ?

Reply:

Quote:
Well, it depends on how you approach the argument. If you interpret it as a "thing" that can do y, then yes. I interpret it as a hypothetical: if x were to obtain, then y (p --> q); therefore the answer is no.

The difference is (not p therrefor not q) is a fallacy, whereas X has property y, can be sound or unsound/proven or disproven etc.

Not p being omniscience, to which Bob posts:

Quote:
(not p therefore not q) is no more a fallacy that (p thefore q)

...what is your point?

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 jumbo1410

 

 

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Thought I better clear up a point here:

(not p therefore not q) is no more a fallacy that (p thefore q) - the truth value of either statement depends on the definition of p and q.

if  p = not a, and q = not b, then (not p therfore not q) is precisely equivalent to (a thefore b).

Thanks for demonstrating so concisely that you don't actually understand formal logic.

Hardly surprising, since your informal logic sucks....

Informally, to pick a random example, if some entity were to be defined such that its presence was supposed to be apparent from every place on earth, and we saw no evidence of it, then it would be valid to say that a widespread failure to detect it would prove that no such entity exists. 

Get it?

Are you retarded, or drunk? Or both?

(not p therefore not q) is the fromal fallacy of denying the antecedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

An example would be (if Aristotle jumped off a skyscraper then he would die)

He has not jumped off a skyscraper

---

He is not dead

In logical form:

If p then q

not p

---

not q

In the original, If omniscience did exist Then it would have such and such attributes...

Saying omniscience does not exist therefore we cannot discuss it is a fallacy.

 

The single statement  (not p therefore not q) is not the fallacy, it is a simple statement.

A valid argument incorporating such a statement would be:

(not p) => (not q)

not p

therefore

not q

which is valid, as is

p => q

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

p

therefore

not q

......................

The corresponding fallacies are

p => q

not p

therefore

not q

which is invalid, as is

(not p) => (not q)

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

not p

therefore

q

....................

The fallacy is going from the if..then statement to a deduction in which you try to say something involving the negation of one or more of the terms in the original if... then statement.

I reaiize this is all going to just hurt your brain, but trust me, if you think about it a little more carefully, you should understand it eventually.

Your statement about omniscience is simply confused - it does not distinguish between whether omniscience exists in the sense that some actual entity exists which has such an attribute, or whether it is possible in principle. Neither of which are relevent to the logical fallacy you referred to.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The single statement

Quote:
The single statement  (not p therefore not q) is not the fallacy, it is a simple statement.

A valid argument incorporating such a statement would be:

(not p) => (not q)

not p

therefore

not q

which is valid, as is

p => q

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

p

therefore

not q

......................

The corresponding fallacies are

p => q

not p

therefore

not q

which is invalid, as is

(not p) => (not q)

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

not p

therefore

q

....................

The fallacy is going from the if..then statement to a deduction in which try to say something involving the negation of one or more of the terms in the original if... then statement.

I reaiize this is all going to just hurt your brain, but trust me, if you think about it a little more carefully, you should understand it eventually.

So by your own logic, you should have no trouble putting in words uor objection to my post?

BTW, If not a Then not b

Not not a

---

not not b

is still denying the antecedent lol.

 

 

 

 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I was not asserting (not p

I was not asserting (not p therefore not q) on its own (where the moses did you get that from?), if that is what you are trying to say.

I said IF x were to obtain (omnipotence/omniscience) THEN it would have these attributes etc (as per previous posts).

Saying that we can't talk about omnipotence and omniscience because the things do not exist (or a thing with these attributes does not exist) is a formal fallacy in this context.

If you choose to interpret omniscience/omnipotence/God in any other way, then you are not disagreeing with my argument, rather asserting a different one altogether.

Does that clear it up a bit?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:The

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
The single statement  (not p therefore not q) is not the fallacy, it is a simple statement.

A valid argument incorporating such a statement would be:

(not p) => (not q)

not p

therefore

not q

which is valid, as is

p => q

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

p

therefore

not q

......................

The corresponding fallacies are

p => q

not p

therefore

not q

which is invalid, as is

(not p) => (not q)

p

therefore

q

and also

p => (not q)

not p

therefore

q

....................

The fallacy is going from the if..then statement to a deduction in which try to say something involving the negation of one or more of the terms in the original if... then statement.

I reaiize this is all going to just hurt your brain, but trust me, if you think about it a little more carefully, you should understand it eventually.

So by your own logic, you should have no trouble putting in words uor objection to my post?

BTW, If not a Then not b

Not not a

---

not not b

is still denying the antecedent lol.

 

Yes, because it is still asserting something about the negation of the terms in the if...then statement.

So long as you have the same number of 'not' s in front of each p and each q, the argument is not a fallacy.

I already stated my objection:

To repeat, "(not p therefore not q) " is NOT the fallacy, and the Wiki article does not say that. That was my objection.

As to what you were trying to argue in the post where you first stated that, I am not clear what you were trying to say, I just picked up on your misstatement of the logical fallacy.

I recall now that in other threads you were often a bit careless with the composition of your posts, so you may have had a valid point in mind, but failed to express it clearly.

I don't see how I can describe more clearly the problem I see with your logic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes, because it is

Quote:
Yes, because it is still asserting something about the negation of the terms in the if...then statement.

So long as you have the same number of 'not' s in front of each p and each q, the argument is not a fallacy.

I already stated my objection:

To repeat, "(not p therefore not q) " is NOT the fallacy, and the Wiki article does not say that. That was my objection.

As to what you were trying to argue in the post where you first stated that, I am not clear what you were trying to say, I just picked up on your misstatement of the logical fallacy.

I recall now that in earlier posts you were a bit careless with the composition of your posts, so you may have had a valid point in mind.

I don't see how I can describe more clearly the problem I see with your logic.

I'm not being condescending when I ask this; have you studied logic?

The point in contention here is this:

Quote:
To repeat, "(not p therefore not q) " is NOT the fallacy, and the Wiki article does not say that. That was my objection.

It is specifically the "Not p" that gives the fallacy its name. Not p therefore not q IS the fallacy - denying q by denying "p", the antecedent. Wikki states this:

The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise.

Now I understand that if I asserted "not p" on its own, there would be no contention. But I did not:

Quote:
if x were to obtain, then y  (p --> q)...Fallacy=(not p therrefor not q)

The "not p" here is X having not obtained (God not existing, or further, no evidence of omniscience). Now, if you wanted clarificatio, you could have just asked. I am cryptic, and I'll admit why: by treating the argument as a hypothetical, I can circumvent any objection based on the premise that God does not exist, or that omniscience doesn't make sense. This is a perfectly acceptable practice, as it cuts out needless formalities in order to debate what is really being proposed - namely omniscience and omnipotence.

Moreover, any other representation of what I have said commits an informal fallacy as well - strawman.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:Yes,

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Yes, because it is still asserting something about the negation of the terms in the if...then statement.

So long as you have the same number of 'not' s in front of each p and each q, the argument is not a fallacy.

I already stated my objection:

To repeat, "(not p therefore not q) " is NOT the fallacy, and the Wiki article does not say that. That was my objection.

As to what you were trying to argue in the post where you first stated that, I am not clear what you were trying to say, I just picked up on your misstatement of the logical fallacy.

I recall now that in earlier posts you were a bit careless with the composition of your posts, so you may have had a valid point in mind.

I don't see how I can describe more clearly the problem I see with your logic.

I'm not being condescending when I ask this; have you studied logic?

The point in contention here is this:

Quote:
To repeat, "(not p therefore not q) " is NOT the fallacy, and the Wiki article does not say that. That was my objection.

It is specifically the "Not p" that gives the fallacy its name. Not p therefore not q IS the fallacy - denying q by denying "p", the antecedent. Wikki states this:

The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise.

Now I understand that if I asserted "not p" on its own, there would be no contention. But I did not:

Quote:
if x were to obtain, then y  (p --> q)...Fallacy=(not p therrefor not q)

The "not p" here is X having not obtained (God not existing, or further, no evidence of omniscience). Now, if you wanted clarificatio, you could have just asked. I am cryptic, and I'll admit why: by treating the argument as a hypothetical, I can circumvent any objection based on the premise that God does not exist, or that omniscience doesn't make sense. This is a perfectly acceptable practice, as it cuts out needless formalities in order to debate what is really being proposed - namely omniscience and omnipotence.

Moreover, any other representation of what I have said commits an informal fallacy as well - strawman.

Regarding logic, you still appear to have a problem. "not p" IS NOT the problem, it is mixing the negation "not p" with the affirmative "if p..." that is the problem.

Never mind, it appears you are not able or willing to acknowledge my point here.

I agree that treating 'omniscience' as a hypothetical, it renders the actual existence of God irrelevant, and I think I alluded to that earlier. The problem is, of course, that it means the the conclusions from any such argument are also in the realm of the hypothetical, and therefore purely speculation, until some evidence is available to tie the premises, however tenuously, to observable/detectable reality.

There really is a problem trying to pin down a coherent meaning for 'omniscience', before you can feasibly allow it be considered a possibility. Unless you do this, you are just playing word games.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Regarding logic, you

Quote:
Regarding logic, you still appear to have a problem. "not p" IS NOT the problem, it is mixing the negation "not p" with the affirmative "if p..." that is the problem.

Do you mean negating "not p"? Where have I used the negation of "not p" with "If p then q"?

Quote:
Never mind, it appears you are not able or willing to acknowledge my point here.

You may be right on both counts, but do you even know what your point is?

Quote:
I agree that treating 'omniscience' as a hypothetical, it renders the actual existence of God irrelevant

No, that is not what I said, nor does it follow.

Quote:
The problem is, of course, that it means the the conclusions from any such argument are also in the realm of the hypothetical, and therefore purely speculation, until some evidence is available to tie the premises, however tenuously, to observable/detectable reality.

Couldn't agree more. Kinda what is meant by hypothetical, though, Bob...

Quote:
There really is a problem trying to pin down a coherent meaning for 'omniscience', before you can feasibly allow it be considered a possibility. Unless you do this, you are just playing word games.

Its a work in progress, like GTOE or any other hypothesis (hadron colliders anyone?)

I'm sorry, I really can't see your objection to what I have said. Can anyone else?


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The fallacy is going

Quote:
The fallacy is going from the if..then statement to a deduction in which you try to say something involving the negation of one or more of the terms in the original if... then statement.

Sooo, you are saying the fallacy exists in trying to deduce a negation of either p or q, in the original "If p then q" statement?

Does this fallacy have a name? Are you trying to say I need to qualify p and q somehow?

Negating q does negate p in propositonal arguments. Its called modus tollens, and is valid. Denying the antecedent is invalid, no question (IFF, bi-cons aside)*.

Wikki won't save you this time.

 

 

* Constitute different arguments.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, you actually don't

Wow, you actually don't understand the fallacy. That's amazingly pathetic!

Look, Jumbo, if you have: 

1) A >> B

2) A

You can derive B. This is called modus ponendo ponens, I believe.

If you have:

1) A >> B

2) -B

You can derive -A. This is called modus tolendo tolens.

The fallacy you are speaking of, denying the antecedent, is like this. Given: 

1) A >> B

2) -A

You are not permitted to derive -B.

What you are getting confused on is that you don't understand that these simply represent any well formed formula with the same structure and that the fallacy comes from incorrectly using this structure, not from the negation sign. Observe, if you have:

1) -p >> -q

2) -p

The symbol ">>" is a 'conditional,' representing 'if'....'then.' Here, we are permitted to derive -q via MPP. This is not denying the antecedent because we aren't taking the negation of the antecedent. The antecedent is already -p. If we had --p as an assumption, then it would be denying the antecedent to derive --q. Again, the fallacy comes from incorrectly using the structure, not just because of the negation sign. You could put anything in this structure, and use the same rules. You could have:

1) ((-p & q) v r ) >> -(q v r)

2) ((-p & q) v r )

3) --(q v r)

You would be permitted to derive -(q v r) from 1 and 2, and -((-p & q) v r ) from 1 and 3. Understand now?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Look, Jumbo, if you

Quote:
Look, Jumbo, if you have: 

1) A >> B

2) A

You can derive B. This is called modus ponendo ponens, I believe.

Correct. Traditionally, we use p and q. This is affirming p, not denying p ("not p&quotEye-wink. This is not relevant to what I am saying. Please keep up.

 

Quote:

If you have:

1) A >> B

2) -B

You can derive -A. This is called modus tolendo tolens.

Also correct, and also irrelevant to my post.

 

Quote:

The fallacy you are speaking of, denying the antecedent, is like this. Given: 

1) A >> B

2) -A

You are not permitted to derive -B.

...And herein lies the beauty of what I said. You are not (validly) entitled to say discussions about omniscience are meaningless because omniscience is not a real thing.

IOW not p (no omniscience/no God) does not entail not q (no attributes of omniscience/can't discuss omniscince)

Bob is replying as if to reject what you just wrote. Read it for yourself.

Quote:

What you are getting confused on is that you don't understand that these simply represent any well formed formula with the same structure and that the fallacy comes from incorrectly using this structure, not from the negation sign. Observe, if you have:

1) -p >> -q

2) -p

The symbol ">>" is a 'conditional,' representing 'if'....'then.' Here, we are permitted to derive -q via MPP. This is not denying the antecedent because we aren't taking the negation of the antecedent. The antecedent is already -p. If we had --p as an assumption, then it would be denying the antecedent to derive --q. Again, the fallacy comes from incorrectly using the structure, not just because of the negation sign. You could put anything in this structure, and use the same rules. You could have:

1) ((-p & q) v r ) >> -(q v r)

2) ((-p & q) v r )

3) --(q v r)

You would be permitted to derive -(q v r) from 1 and 2, and -((-p & q) v r ) from 1 and 3. Understand now?

Are you reading what I'm writing? How does If (not p) Then (not q) even relate to what I said?

That would mean that in my original reply to Anonymouse, I would have said If (no omnisicence (x did not obtain)) Then (no attributes(no discussion)). Precisely the opposite of what I am saying, or ~(~q) therefore ~(~p) in your misapplication of ~p >> ~q. I am saying a discussion about omni's can make sense, without the need for an entity with omniscience to exist.

It is so flaming obvious that any objection made must be at q (or ~(~q) in the misapplication). Thus far, no one has said squat.

It's one thing to cut and past out of wikki, and another to actually apply it to what I (or anybody else) have said.

 

If it is so obvious that I have committed a fallacy, then where is it? Use my argument, and not the strawman you conjured up.

 

Seriously, you guys are having me on, right?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm interested in your relentless

 

accusations of cutting and pasting out of wikipedia. So far no one seems to be doing so in this thread whether you guys agree with each other yet or not.

Is this your big intellectual insult, or are you just projecting something?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:accusations of cutting

Quote:
accusations of cutting and pasting out of wikipedia. So far no one seems to be doing so in this thread whether you guys agree with each other yet or not.

Is this your big intellectual insult, or are you just projecting something?

Ahem. Hello, and welcome. What is your understanding of what's being said? If there is no application of any of the aforementioned, am I not entitled to assume that you are stabbing in the dark? Do you have a working knowledgde of basic logic? Please, enlighten me.

 

EDIT: Spelling (some lol).


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I didn't even read

Sorry, I didn't even read what you originally wrote. I was just under the impression that you didn't understand 'denying the antecedent' because of what Bobspence was saying and because of this:

jumbo1410 wrote:
BTW, If not a Then not b

Not not a

---

not not b

is still denying the antecedent lol.

And this:

jumbo1410 wrote:
It is specifically the "Not p" that gives the fallacy its name. Not p therefore not q IS the fallacy - denying q by denying "p", the antecedent. Wikki states this:

The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clauseof the conditional premise.

Now I understand that if I asserted "not p" on its own, there would be no contention. But I did not:

To clarify, without worrying about our arguments for a second, do you agree that:

1) -P >> -Q

2) -P

3) Therefore, -Q.

Is valid?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm not joining you guys in this debate

 

I have a basic understanding of basic logic - Lol.

I'm happy to talk about omniscience and omnipotence but not this way. You guys finish up first.

As an interested observer I'd simply prefer the topic stayed on the rails rather that degenerating into unnecessary sniping.

I want to see who is correct and who admits defeat.

I'm probably the only poster who is following this with support but it's Ray J McCall, not WP.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To clarify, without

Quote:
To clarify, without worrying about our arguments for a second, do you agree that:

1) -P >> -Q

2) -P

3) Therefore, -Q.

Is valid?

Yes. But AFAIK

1. ~p -> ~q

2. ~~P

---

3. ~~q

is still denying the antecedent. Checking that though, give me time.

 

EDIT: Initial checks say invalid. The reason is ~~p reduces to p, which is literally not the expected (not p) of the first form we agreed upon, i.e. ~p > ~q, p therefore q = denying the antecedent. Can anyone verify that?


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Going right back to what we

Going right back to what we were tlking about, it appears that we are quite justified in talking logically about entities/attributes that may not exist. I was right the entire time, so long as it is taken as a hypothetical Smiling


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jumbo is rightp->q~p~q is a

Jumbo is right

p->q

~p

~q

 

is a fallacy.

 

 

which s/he seemed to say in this post:

 

Quote:

Well, it depends on how you approach the argument. If you interpret it as a "thing" that can do y, then yes. I interpret it as a hypothetical: if x were to obtain, then y (p --> q); therefore the answer is no.

The difference is (not p therrefor not q) is a fallacy, whereas X has property y, can be sound or unsound/proven or disproven etc.

 

 

s/he included the

p->q

 

then said the ~p therefore ~q is a fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Yes. But

jumbo1410 wrote:

Yes. But AFAIK

1. ~p -> ~q

2. ~~P

---

3. ~~q

is still denying the antecedent. Checking that though, give me time. 

EDIT: Initial checks say invalid. The reason is ~~p reduces to p, which is literally not the expected (not p) of the first form we agreed upon, i.e. ~p > ~q, p therefore q = denying the antecedent. Can anyone verify that?

Yes, you're right. That's denying the antecedent.

jumbo1410 wrote:
BTW, If not a Then not b

 

Not not a

---

not not b

 

is still denying the antecedent lol. 

Also, I just noticed that in this post, you wrote 'Not not a' and 'not not b.' For some reason, when I read that the first time, I thought it said not a and not b.

My apologies. 

Edit: Communication, FTW. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
You are very welcome. I

You are very welcome. I enjoyed it Smiling


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:The

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
The problem is, of course, that it means the the conclusions from any such argument are also in the realm of the hypothetical, and therefore purely speculation, until some evidence is available to tie the premises, however tenuously, to observable/detectable reality.

Couldn't agree more. Kinda what is meant by hypothetical, though, Bob...

Quote:
There really is a problem trying to pin down a coherent meaning for 'omniscience', before you can feasibly allow it be considered a possibility. Unless you do this, you are just playing word games.

Its a work in progress, like GTOE or any other hypothesis (hadron colliders anyone?)

I'm sorry, I really can't see your objection to what I have said. Can anyone else?

It is an inherently futile task, which has really made little progress in a couple of thousand years, discussing ultimately empty concepts (God, omni- attributes ), unlike the task of firing up the LHC. 

Until you can map the propositions to something real, it is all empty waffle.

The God hypothesis only raises new questions, and answers none, in any discernible way. None of its attributes even make sense as extrapolations of anything we have observed in reality, so it is pure empty ignorant speculation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
With all that gunfire out of the way

 

is it right to say logic on its own is insufficient proof of god? Would a logical proof require logic to be older than god or demand god act at its behest, so to speak?

And is logic - and let's get this straight given the earlier discussion - is human logic - the master of god? Or is god beyond logic?

Finally - if god is beyond human logic - and let's face it he's well beyond my logic - can we conceive him logically at all?

 

P.S. Could the mega-brains pls apply the principle of KISS. I'm on the outskirts of comprehension already. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck