Proof of God

Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Proof of God

(1) g = dftx. ~(∃y)(Gyx) (Df)

(2) (x)(y) ((Rx & Ry)=>Gxy) (p)

(3) (∃y)(Ry) (p)

(4) ~Rg (AP)

(5) (x)((Rx & ~Rg)=>(Gxg)) (2; UI)

(6) Ry (3; EI)

(7) Ry & ~Rg (4,6; Conj)

(8 ) Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (5,7; UI, MP, ID)

(9) ( ∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (8; EG)

(10) ~~( ∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (9; B, T)

:. Rg (4-10; IP, DN)

 


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Tom_the_Who

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In practice, from a contradiction, NOTHING follows.

What do you mean "in practice?"  You are just extrapolating from your own experience, or the collective experiences of others, to make "practice" mean whatever you want it to mean so as to vitiate an entire academic discipline that you know little about.  Maybe these things mean nothing to you in your experience, but that's not really an interesting point, let alone one germane to this discussion.  

I suspect that what you're doing is attempting to relegate the disciplines on which theological claims can be made tenable so as to further your anti-God agenda.  Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.

I simply mean outside the context of a formal system, which Goedel showed can get stuck on undecidable propositions, or IOW cannot be 'complete'.

You could say that about any system of abstracts; what kind of point is this?  Look, is it really that difficult to admit that you're wrong?  Why do atheists have such a difficult time admitting mistakes?  Why do you keep defending your error?

You are WRONG.  Anything is entailed by a logical contradiction; any mathematician would tell you this.  This very assumption constitutes the baseline with which set theorists, including Kurt Goedel, resolved Russell's paradox.  Further, if you posited a contradiction in a formalized argument, you actually could inferentially bring about any proposition.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Tom, there are limits

Well Tom, there are limits but in general we are a tolerant place.  That being said, we have banned people who have been around here for a few years if they cross the line.

If you tone it down, then you can stick around.  Perhaps once we get to know who you are as a person, we will be a bit more open.  However, to do this on your first evening here is very bad form on your part.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:natural

Tom_the_Who wrote:

natural wrote:

Ah, the elusive ad nominom fallacy.

It's not a fallacy.  I think it's reasonable to assume based on your appearance that you eat a lot.  Am I wrong?  Do you have some thyroid condition that makes you gain weight?

Ah, the extremely rare not-being-able-to-spot-your-own-fallacies-even-when-they-are-pointed-out-to-you fallacy. Oops, did I say rare? I meant common.

The fallacy, Tom, is that my physical appearance has exactly zero to do with anything in this thread. The second fallacy was when you failed to notice your own fallacy, even after I pointed it out.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Further,

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Further, if you posited a contradiction in a formalized argument, you actually could inferentially bring about any proposition.

Thereby destroying your system of logic by rendering it inconsistent. Exactly as I stated. You must choose: Inconsistent or incomplete. If you choose inconsistent, you automatically lose. The only reasonable choice is consistency (with incompleteness).

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In practice, from a contradiction, NOTHING follows.

What do you mean "in practice?"  You are just extrapolating from your own experience, or the collective experiences of others, to make "practice" mean whatever you want it to mean so as to vitiate an entire academic discipline that you know little about.  Maybe these things mean nothing to you in your experience, but that's not really an interesting point, let alone one germane to this discussion.  

I suspect that what you're doing is attempting to relegate the disciplines on which theological claims can be made tenable so as to further your anti-God agenda.  Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.

I simply mean outside the context of a formal system, which Goedel showed can get stuck on undecidable propositions, or IOW cannot be 'complete'.

You could say that about any system of abstracts; what kind of point is this?  Look, is it really that difficult to admit that you're wrong?  Why do atheists have such a difficult time admitting mistakes?  Why do you keep defending your error?

You are WRONG.  Anything is entailed by a logical contradiction; any mathematician would tell you this.  This very assumption constitutes the baseline with which set theorists, including Kurt Goedel, resolved Russell's paradox.  Further, if you posited a contradiction in a formalized argument, you actually could inferentially bring about any proposition.

That is not logical. A contradiction is not allowed within logic, therefore if anything contains a contradiction, no argument following from that is valid.

I know the traditional argument, that you are stating, but that is just a demonstration that the argument, within the system, has failed, and therefore from a meta-level, cannot prove anything, precisely because they appear to prove 'anything is possible'.

You surely don't believe that such invalid formulations actually prove that 'anything is possible', ie in reality??

 

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Tom_the_Who

natural wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Further, if you posited a contradiction in a formalized argument, you actually could inferentially bring about any proposition.

Thereby destroying your system of logic by rendering it inconsistent. Exactly as I stated. You must choose: Inconsistent or incomplete. If you choose inconsistent, you automatically lose. The only reasonable choice is consistency (with incompleteness).

You can make your system inconsistent so long as you abandon the principle of explosion, which is what's done in paraconsistent logic.  But with it also goes a multitude of principles the rejection of which is intuitively unsatisfactory.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That is not

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not logical. A contradiction is not allowed within logic, therefore if anything contains a contradiction, no argument following from that is invalid.

I know the traditional argument, that you are stating, but that is just a demonstration that the argument, within the system, has failed, and therefore from a meta-level, cannot prove anything, precisely because they appear to prove 'anything is possible'.

You surely don't believe that such invalid formulations actually prove that 'anything is possible', ie in reality??

In reality, it's true that if there's a contradiction, then anything is entailed by it.  It's a conditional statement that's trivially true, but true nonetheless.  

It's also true in reality that if unicorns exist, then they have one horn; again, it's trivial, but it's still true.

 

Here is proof that anything is entailed by a logical contradiction:

Let A = some proposition, and B = any other proposition that is not A.

(1) A & ~A  (assumed premise)

(2) A  (1; Simp)

(3) ~A (1; Simp)

(4) A v B (2; Add)

(5) B  (3,4; DS)

:. (A & ~A)=>B  (1-5; CP)

In other words, since the propositional logic addition rule is such any disjunct can be attached to the atomic sentence, there is not a single proposition that cannot be inferred from "A & ~A."  

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Formal systems are fine as

Formal systems are fine as long as you are careful what category of propositions you attempt to apply them to. Once you get away from simple 'atomic' propositions, and try to make arguments about the validity of arguments, you are asking for trouble.

The basic problem arises when some degree of self-reference is involved, a form of circularity.

The ultimate nonsense is of course when you try to prove God by purely logical means, with no empirical input at all, as in the OA.

You have to recognize the inherent limitations of such systems.

Software engineers such as myself know it only too well - infinite loops or stack overflows are the sort of thing that apparently valid logic can lead to under certain conditions.

Which is why properly engineered software should have checks for invalid arguments, and possibly abort an operation rather than risk an unnoticed error.

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Formal

BobSpence1 wrote:

Formal systems are fine as long as you are careful what category of propositions you attempt to apply them to. Once you get away from simple 'atomic' propositions, and try to make arguments about the validity of arguments, you are asking for trouble.

The basic problem arises when some degree of self-reference is involved, a form of circularity.

The ultimate nonsense is of course when you try to prove God by purely logical means, with no empirical input at all, as in the OA.

Theorems are proven all the time with no empirical input; this has always been the case in mathematics.  You can't just presuppose that empirical observation is the only way that we can know things; that's a metaphysical assumption and you don't get it for free.  

What the ontological argument does show is that "God exists" is either tautological or contradictory; hence, the existence of God is not an empirical issue, but rather it's an issue of meaning.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:You can't

Tom_the_Who wrote:
You can't just presuppose that empirical observation is the only way that we can know things; that's a metaphysical assumption and you don't get it for free. 

You're right, it doesn't come free. It takes a good deal of practical experience.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Formal systems are fine as long as you are careful what category of propositions you attempt to apply them to. Once you get away from simple 'atomic' propositions, and try to make arguments about the validity of arguments, you are asking for trouble.

The basic problem arises when some degree of self-reference is involved, a form of circularity.

The ultimate nonsense is of course when you try to prove God by purely logical means, with no empirical input at all, as in the OA.

Theorems are proven all the time with no empirical input; this has always been the case in mathematics.  You can't just presuppose that empirical observation is the only way that we can know things; that's a metaphysical assumption and you don't get it for free.  

What the ontological argument does show is that "God exists" is either tautological or contradictory; hence, the existence of God is not an empirical issue, but rather it's an issue of meaning.

You missed my point, of course. I only mentioned 'empirical' in the context of the OA, trying to prove something about reality without some reference to real, ie empirical data.

Of course theorems don't require empirical data, I did not claim otherwise. Theorems are fine, it is certain categories of propositions than can trip you up, such as the elementary "This sentence is false", or "the barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber?".

So God is just a matter of semantics, of words, not about anything that impacts Life and the Universe. Fair enough.

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You missed

BobSpence1 wrote:

You missed my point, of course. I only mentioned 'empirical' in the context of the OA, trying to prove something about reality without some reference to real, ie empirical data.

Of course theorems don't require empirical data, I did not claim otherwise. Theorems are fine, it is certain categories of propositions than can trip you up, such as the elementary "This sentence is false", or "the barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber?".

So God is just a matter of semantics, of words, not about anything that impacts Life and the Universe. Fair enough.

Okay, let me use a more salient example.  

Did you have to use empirical observation to verify your own existence?  That you came to believe, upon empirical investigation subsequent to your birth, in your own existence at a time before which you were unaware that you existed--even though you did, in fact, exist--seems implausible.

It's more plausible to assume that you knew a priori that you existed; here, you logically inferred something about reality without recourse to empirical observation.

But even if you reject this example, just saying that you can't prove the existence of a real thing by logic alone just begs the question.  To surmount the ontological argument, you have to actually pinpoint a false or vacuous premise, an invalid inference, or show that the conclusion of the argument is uninteresting for the purposes of theism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
what the fuck why tell us

what the fuck why tell us this?

 

if you so smart submit it to a journal and get rich you know how much fame you get?

 

belief in god stupid like what the fuck?

 

instead take universe and quantum and it blow you fucking mind holy shit

 

 

 


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:what the

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

what the fuck why tell us this?

 

if you so smart submit it to a journal and get rich you know how much fame you get?

 

belief in god stupid like what the fuck?

 

instead take universe and quantum and it blow you fucking mind holy shit

 

Could I take you out for dinner?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
no like seriously what the

no like seriously what the fuck?

 

go date girl who believe in sky fairy

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You missed my point, of course. I only mentioned 'empirical' in the context of the OA, trying to prove something about reality without some reference to real, ie empirical data.

Of course theorems don't require empirical data, I did not claim otherwise. Theorems are fine, it is certain categories of propositions than can trip you up, such as the elementary "This sentence is false", or "the barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber?".

So God is just a matter of semantics, of words, not about anything that impacts Life and the Universe. Fair enough.

Okay, let me use a more salient example.  

Did you have to use empirical observation to verify your own existence?  That you came to believe, upon empirical investigation subsequent to your birth, in your own existence at a time before which you were unaware that you existed--even though you did, in fact, exist--seems implausible.

It's more plausible to assume that you knew a priori that you existed; here, you logically inferred something about reality without recourse to empirical observation.

But even if you reject this example, just saying that you can't prove the existence of a real thing by logic alone just begs the question.  To surmount the ontological argument, you have to actually pinpoint a false or vacuous premise, an invalid inference, or show that the conclusion of the argument is uninteresting for the purposes of theism.

The basic principles of empirical research is that you make the absolute minimum assumptions, which I do indeed concede includes the reality of my own existence, and then the validity of the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction, as a minimum basis for coherent discourse. They are not so much 'facts' about what 'is', just principles of argument about what 'is'.

Beyond that, everything must be demonstrated to be the most consistent model to explain what we experience and observe. Even the Laws of Logic could be in principle up for grabs, if someone could show a more useful basis for analysing reality.

The OA does not refer to anything external, so it cannot make any assertions about anything beyond the context of the words employed in the argument. At best it can suggest that 'something' is necessary for existence, but it cannot assert anything about the actual nature of that 'something', that would be necessary to show that it corresponds to anything like the Christian, or any other God.

Sure, something may have been necessary to initiate the Big Bang, or the meta-Universe within which the Big Bang occurred, or the larger context of existence itself, but further evidence-based argument would be needed to determine whether anything more than a quantum-scale random (causeless) twitch was needed to serve as that 'cause'.

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Okay, let me use a more salient example.  

 

Did you have to use empirical observation to verify your own existence?  That you came to believe, upon empirical investigation subsequent to your birth, in your own existence at a time before which you were unaware that you existed--even though you did, in fact, exist--seems implausible.


 

Well, that question does not even make sense. Here I would refer you to the meditations.


 

If you do not want to go there, then watch the first Matrix movie. Don't bother with the sequels as they were balls up stupid. Still, the first one posits the same question as the first half of Descartes.


 

Does it even make sense that Neo existed before he found Morpheus?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Tom_the_Who

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You missed my point, of course. I only mentioned 'empirical' in the context of the OA, trying to prove something about reality without some reference to real, ie empirical data.

Of course theorems don't require empirical data, I did not claim otherwise. Theorems are fine, it is certain categories of propositions than can trip you up, such as the elementary "This sentence is false", or "the barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber?".

So God is just a matter of semantics, of words, not about anything that impacts Life and the Universe. Fair enough.

Okay, let me use a more salient example.  

Did you have to use empirical observation to verify your own existence?  That you came to believe, upon empirical investigation subsequent to your birth, in your own existence at a time before which you were unaware that you existed--even though you did, in fact, exist--seems implausible.

It's more plausible to assume that you knew a priori that you existed; here, you logically inferred something about reality without recourse to empirical observation.

But even if you reject this example, just saying that you can't prove the existence of a real thing by logic alone just begs the question.  To surmount the ontological argument, you have to actually pinpoint a false or vacuous premise, an invalid inference, or show that the conclusion of the argument is uninteresting for the purposes of theism.

The basic principles of empirical research is that you make the absolute minimum assumptions, which I do indeed concede includes the reality of my own existence, and then the validity of the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction, as a minimum basis for coherent discourse. They are not so much 'facts' about what 'is', just principles of argument about what 'is'.

Beyond that, everything must be demonstrated to be the most consistent model to explain what we experience and observe. Even the Laws of Logic could be in principle up for grabs, if someone could show a more useful basis for analysing reality.

The OA does not refer to anything external, so it cannot make any assertions about anything beyond the context of the words employed in the argument. At best it can suggest that 'something' is necessary for existence, but it cannot assert anything about the actual nature of that 'something', that would be necessary to show that it corresponds to anything like the Christian, or any other God.

Sure, something may have been necessary to initiate the Big Bang, or the meta-Universe within which the Big Bang occurred, or the larger context of existence itself, but further evidence-based argument would be needed to determine whether anything more than a quantum-scale random (causeless) twitch was needed to serve as that 'cause'.

Are you talking about Ockham's Razor?  Ockham's Razor is not a principle of empirical research; it doesn't even need to involve empirical observation.  The origin of it is based on the deductive methodology with which Ockham justified his nominalism, which is a metaphysical position according to which universal categories are not real things.

What you are making is called an "ad hoc fallacy."  You imply universal statements such as "we can't know things unless we justify them in experience," and when a defeater is presented, you just repond with "we can't know things unless we justify them in experience, EXCEPT in the case of those things you've mentioned."  It's like the following case:  I claim that all horses are brown, you show me a white horse, and I just say that all horses are brown except for the one you've shown me.

The ontological argument does refer to something external--namely, God.  The whole point of the argument is to prove that God exists in concrete thought-independent reality.  

The argument does not just prove that something is necessary; Plantinga formalized it specifically with regard to a maximally great being, which is God by definition.  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We can't know things about

We can't know things about reality, ie, what exists outside our imagination, without reference to external reality, which requires empirical observation.

God is a claim, a conclusion, about the nature of reality, therefore requires justification by reference to reality, ie empirical evidence. Do you seriously not see the point there??

And are you seriously bringing up the fallacy of simplistic induction?? The more brown horses we see, the greater the probability the next one we see will be brown, if nothing else changes, is a perfectly valid conclusion. Read up on Bayesian inference, please, before making such ignorant statements.

Even if you accept the fallacy of the OA, which Platinga also conceded was not conclusive in itself, a Maximally Great being does not logically entail the Christian God or any particular predefined being, or anything about such a being's ultimate intentions or motives, or anything about any omni- attributes.

We thrashed this all out as far as we were ever gonna get last time you graced us with your presence.

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We can't

[mod edit: empty ad homs deleted]


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom, you've already been

Tom, you've already been warned. Ad homs with no substance are against the forum rules. I've marked your latest comment for review by the mod team.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:True or

Tom_the_Who wrote:

True or false:

If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.

If 2 + 2 = 5, then you're really a woman trapped in a man's body.

"If it's possible that there be a being like that, it follows by virtue of a certain theorem from Modal Logic, it follows that there is a certain being." Platinga


Tom_the_Who wrote:

Why do you need me to define the terms? 

Why would you write something in a cryptic fashion?
Tom_the_Who wrote:
Go and get educated, and then respond to me. 

You must confuse knowledge for intelligence and aptitude. That's silly.


Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.


You're confusing knowledge and intelligence, again.
Articulating your thoughts in 'code' that others are unfamiliar with, is no better than talking in a foreign tongue with your mouth full of marbles.
 

Labelling others as 'stupid' because you failed to explain yourself in a manner in which your thoughts could be scrutinized, is completely ironic.

I can't think of any intelligent person who wanted to be taken seriously, that would choose to communicate their ideas in that manner.

But, is it true that you can reason away uncertainty about what is true/ not true with your methods?

Then prove that there is/isn't life on other planets. I'm sure most people would like to know the 'truth' about that. Can you with your (formal logic) answer that?

I've debated 'Logic Ninjas' before who somehow neglect admitting (or realizing) that the foundations of logic were derived from empiricism. Every single 'logician' I've ever heard uses 'natural' world examples to 'reality check' their 'logic', and to 'argue' and attempt to persuade people that their hypothesis is accurate.

Funny dat, huh?

IOW, we can't actually demonstrate that something is true, with logic, until reality (actuality) confirms it to be true. Without science, we can only assume, or hope that our theories are accurate, which is why science trumps speculation not only in simple true/not true dichotomies, but with scope of understanding.

Tom_the_Who wrote:
The whole point of the post was to confuse the atheists whom I know, or at least can plausible presume, have not had any training in formal logic.

Then you're argument for god(s) can't be all that good, obviously. Even if one were to 'accept' that a 'god' created the universe, it does nothing to prove that theists are not in error about every other aspect of their 'god' beliefs.

For example, you couldn't use that as a proof of a 'god' still currently existing, or that a 'god' has 'concern' over what it creates.


So, in the context of religions, you've not accomplished much. You're not even able to demonstrate that there aren't many 'gods', which would tremendously undermine the doctrines of Abrahamic religions, nor does it demonstrate that there is an afterlife.


So, what do you think you really know, about how the universe formed, and can prove to not be a 'false positive'?

Tom_the_Who wrote:

It's interesting how atheists champion their positions (or lack thereof) as being the most logical and yet cannot even comprehend the basics of formal logic.

Perhaps it escapes you that any form of a priori assumption(s) is merely an argument for what (is thought) must be true (within the context of the argument).

This is distinctly different from whether it is 'actually' true, in reality. Which my previous example with the missing puppy clearly demonstrates how you cannot possibly get ahead of yourself with unsupported assumptions.

Hindsight is an infinitely better methodology at 20/20 vision, than foresight. There can be no debate about this.

Which is where scientific methodology trumps any form of codified logic, in modeling reality.

Tom_the_Who wrote:

The ontological argument does refer to something external--namely, God.  The whole point of the argument is to prove that God exists in concrete thought-independent reality. 

The argument does not just prove that something is necessary; Plantinga formalized it specifically with regard to a maximally great being, which is God by definition. 


Platinga has admitted that he would not attempt to use his argument as proof of a god, but rather, as a good reason to believe that one exists.

He does not believe philosophical arguments of these sorts, are powerful.

They probably neglect to mention that till after you've finished the philosophy courses, and you're on your way to receiving your "Would you like fries with that?" T shirt when you embark on your post education job search...

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Mr M is back!Welcome

Hey, Mr M is back!

Welcome back Mr M. why the new name?  Same IP I presume Smiling

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom,I told you I do not

Tom,

I told you I do not write computer games, not that that would invalidate my point about writing computer software requires a solid grasp of logic.

I do not spend most of my time on this forum - I get on as a break from a large programming project.

I have pointed out many times how it is you who do not grasp Logic at a high enough level to comprehend your misunderstandings. I did it in your previous incarnation when I pointed out that to validly apply S5 modal logic to the OA as you were attempting to do required to already know that 'God' was 'possibly necessary', which would require a level of knowledge of an assumed infinite being which would be utterly beyond the comprehension of a finite mind.

Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' is not universally 'evidence of absence' is another indicator. You may comprehend the words in which logic concepts are defined, but you seem to interpret them in a very simplistic way, not stepping back to view it in a broader context, as demonstrated so clearly with the 'absence of evidence' thing. And with the contradiction explosion thing as well.

And now you are descending back into ad hom. What prank are you going to visit on this site to vent your frustration this time?

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 

Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.  The whole point of the post was to confuse the atheists whom I know, or at least can plausible presume, have not had any training in formal logic.  It's interesting how atheists champion their positions (or lack thereof) as being the most logical and yet cannot even comprehend the basics of formal logic.

You are a paradigm example of this; in the other post, you presented yourself as the bearer of epistemic authority with regard to rational thinking.  Would you be able to tell me anything about quantification theory?

That's why I did not define the terms.

Wait, what? so.... your logic goes like this, you type some giberish.  We do not understand it (because it is giberish and looks formal), and tell you as much.  And that makes atheists stupid?  You rate intelligence relative to the amount of knowledge in the discipline of logic?  You also assume that we represent all atheists?  Someone doesn't come out looking very intelligent from that comment, I'm not going to name any names, we all know who we are.

BTW, a "paradigm example" makes no sense, a "paradigm example" is an example of an example.  Also, using big words doesn't make one intelligent.  Being well versed in a given discipline (such as logic) doesn't make one intelligent.  Intelligence is a subjective attribute, often quite biased.  I guarantee you there are IQ tests that I will score higher than you, and there are some that I will score lower.  Calling people stupid, often just shows your own insecurities.  

To my knowledge, nobody here claimed to be an epistemic authority relative to any sort of thinking, let alone rational.  You show me the post where Bob claimed to be such an authority? He may have presented a paradigm (hehe, there's that word again), from which to consider epistemology, but that's as much as I have read from his posts.

Anyways, good to see you're back dude, try not to get banned this time Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: BTW, a

Ktulu wrote:
BTW, a "paradigm example" makes no sense, a "paradigm example" is an example of an example. 

He was probably searching for 'paramount' but prematurely ejaculated 'paradigm' in his *ahem* enthusiasm...

 

Ktulu wrote:
Also, using big words doesn't make one intelligent. 
 

He was just being obstreperous...

It must be frustrating to have spent all that time studying such an unmarketable degree, and ineffective way to persuade people to believe you know something they don't.

Way to limit yourself in the modern world...lol

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Here is

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Here is proof that anything is entailed by a logical contradiction:

Let A = some proposition, and B = any other proposition that is not A.

(1) A & ~A  (assumed premise)

(2) A  (1; Simp)

(3) ~A (1; Simp)

(4) A v B (2; Add)

(5) B  (3,4; DS)

:. (A & ~A)=>B  (1-5; CP)

In other words, since the propositional logic addition rule is such any disjunct can be attached to the atomic sentence, there is not a single proposition that cannot be inferred from "A & ~A."  

 

 

Okay, my logic professor just gave you a big, fat, F.  Why?  Your first statement - A & ~A - is identically equal to FALSE in all cases.  Therefore, the rest of what you wrote is no proof of anything.  You start any proof with a premise you wish to prove is true.  You can prove nothing if you start out with a premise defined as false.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote: That

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 That emote with the sunglasses is so stupid.  Did the Muslim God design this website?

 

No. The Golden Idol designed it.

This one???

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Phew what a thread

 

there's not been such a  fuss since Ma caught her tits in the mangle. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rednef,I found time to watch

rednef,

I found time to watch that video of Plantinga.

OMFG.

I had retained some lingering respect for him, based on his acknowledgement that the OA could not really be taken as a convincing proof of God.

But now I see why he said that. He thinks belief in God is something that can be just taken as as self-evident as belief in the reality of other people.

IOW he has succumbed to the same fundamental fallacy as the dumbest Theist, that the intuitive conviction that God is 'behind' everything we observe in the world is sufficient to justify the belief. That 'reasoning' would justify every superstition, every irrational belief, every possible religion...

And then compounds his error by claiming that according to 'naturalistic' ideas, evolution cannot guarantee in any way that our 'beliefs' are based on truth.

First, he is ignoring the fact that rationality is precisely the ability to get beyond such evolved instincts, then secondly failing to acknowledge that his own belief that God exists is based on those fallible instincts!! Despite the prompting of the interviewer that that would be a justifiable observation!

I imagine his defence would be based on the supposed impossibility that true rational intelligence could emerge naturally, ie without divine intervention. IOW that evolution could never give rise to anything beyond those instinctive behaviors.

My respect for the 'qualification' of 'Philosopher' just went down several more notches from its already low level.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:rednef,I

BobSpence1 wrote:

rednef,

I found time to watch that video of Plantinga.

OMFG.

I know, I know...lol

Have you seen the video about him taking about if he can 'imagine' himself waking up inhabiting the physical body of a beetle, it follows that it is justified to believe that our 'essence' is separate from our physical bodies?

BobSpence1 wrote:
I had retained some lingering respect for him, based on his acknowledgement that the OA could not really be taken as a convincing proof of God.

Then you were premature in granting him. There's a reason why these people are not winning any Nobel Prizes. They're just not contributing anything to true advancement in distilling the truth about how the universe works, or it's past.

BobSpence1 wrote:
But now I see why he said that. He thinks belief in God is something that can be just taken as as self-evident as belief in the reality of other people.

It's a little more distinct that that. He thinks 'faith' in the Christian god, is as justified as having 'faith' that there are other people, or that there was a 'past', because one cannot (in his estimation) logically prove those things exist, either.

BobSpence1 wrote:
IOW he has succumbed to the same fundamental fallacy as the dumbest Theist, that the intuitive conviction that God is 'behind' everything we observe in the world is sufficient to justify the belief.

Right. The Ray Ray Comfort "A painting is scientific proof there was a painter; ergo, creation is scientific proof there was a creator" logical fallacy.

BobSpence1 wrote:
That 'reasoning' would justify every superstition, every irrational belief, every possible religion...

Right.

The Christians then start singing about how the legend of Jesus is their 'Ace in the hole', even though there's mountains of reasons to believe that the legend of Jesus is a composite of legends and myths, or that he's actually deader than a doornail.

BobSpence1 wrote:
And then compounds his error by claiming that according to 'naturalistic' ideas, evolution cannot guarantee in any way that our 'beliefs' are based on truth.

First, he is ignoring the fact that rationality is precisely the ability to get beyond such evolved instincts, then secondly failing to acknowledge that his own belief that God exists is based on those fallible instincts!! Despite the prompting of the interviewer that that would be a justifiable observation!

Right.

He falls on his own sword a lot.

I think you'd get a real kick out of his complete misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of evolution by natural selection. His arguments are based on the fallacy that evolution 'cares'.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I imagine his defence would be based on the supposed impossibility that true rational intelligence could emerge naturally, ie without divine intervention. IOW that evolution could never give rise to anything beyond those instinctive behaviors.

My respect for the 'qualification' of 'Philosopher' just went down several more notches from its already low level.

I think a lot of us have to realize that we ourselves have a tendency to give way too much 'benefit of the doubt' to just about everyone, and probably more so to people who are 'scholars' (for lack of a better term).

These guys have a name, and attack for every 'position' that doesn't coincide with theism!

Naturalists. Humanists. Nihilists. Darwinists. Evolutionists. Materialists. Evidentialists.

SCIENTISTS!!!

There are on the 'attack', and always have been.

I think you'd get:

1- A real kick out of listening to him demonstrate the mental gymnastics some of these theists do to weave an interconnected (fallacious) epistimology, and abuses of reductio ad absurdum that would seemingly give grounds (if it were not fallacious) for having 'faith' (with no evidence) in a god existing.

2- A bit better grasp into how the delusion takes hold in the minds of people you like to argue with. They are really on a different 'wavelength', and it starts at a very fundamental level of epistemology and ontology. The answer to your numerous 'Are you serious??' questions about their thinking, is 'Yes' they are completely serious about how they think...lol

If you have the time, check out Platinga's lecture on 'Naturalism'. Your jaw will hurt from dropping so many times...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Good find Rednef.I am

Good find Rednef.

I am enjoying the video, and despite the fact that it is misleading you have to admire the Gordian Knot solution it attempts to prove.  As I watched the first video, I actually got a little excited at the way he described his argument, I wanted him to present something coherent.  Alas, it was not to be so, the turning point is when he quotes Patricia Churchland "truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost...".  He interprets that to say that natural selections doesn't care about your beliefs, which is somewhat true.  But what Churchland meant was that TRUTH is a meaningless concept due to it's relativity and subjectivity.  Truth as Plantinga understands it, as the absolute, objective TRUTH, is where the major fallacy of equivocation comes in.  The second fallacy of equivocation is on BELIEF.

At the beginning of the third video, he sets out the playing field with the assumption that because Darwin had a doubt about the validity of beliefs as if they were a monkeys, and the misstating of what Churchland meant, it follows that the probability of BELIEF being TRUE is low in an evolutionary naturalistic paradigm (hehe, I love that word).  The one major unspoken objection here is that BELIEF as an evolutionary segue for behavior will always tend to favor the relative TRUTH over relative ERROR.  

In a different video you have posted on Plantinga, he mentions the frog and fly example, where the fly's beliefs have no bearing on the outcome that it will get eaten by the frog.  That's actually wrong, consider population of flies A and flies B.  Flies A hold the belief that flying over ponds with Lily pads is bad for you, and flies B believe that Lily pads look pretty and pose no threat.  Evolution guaranties that over a few generation flies B with the erroneous belief will be wiped out, and flies A with the true belief will get to carry on their genes.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Good find

Ktulu wrote:

Good find Rednef.

It's almost as good as Kramer on Seinfeld. What makes it better is that Platinga is in real life.

It's only in the subculture of pseudo intellects that this kind of 'thinking' could possibly get any accolades.

If I didn't know better, I'd think these were quotes from an ignorant drunk, not that of an academic.

 

Read what he describes (from the first video I posted) what evolution 'is'.

Tell me it doesn't read like the thoughts of an ignorant drunk Creationist that was the intellectual equal to the 'Banana Man'.

-------------------------

 

"What evolution is interested in is adaptive behavior, it doesn't, as such, give a hoot what you believe, all it cares about...it rewards adaptive behavior, and punishes maladaptive behavior.

So, evolution will modify those neurophysiological properties in the direction of greater adaptiveness so that they'll cause adaptive action more frequently, let's say...

But it doesn't follow that in any way modifies belief in the direction of truth....evolution doesn't care about true belief" : Platinga

 

-------------------------

 

Aside from anthropomorphizing a noun that describes how the gene pool ebbs and flows over time, he still gets the basics of evolution by natural selection wrong.

Evolution by natural selection also allows for superior and advantageous mutations to not be propagated, due to the entirely 'random' nature of the environment and climate.

This really isn't all that difficult to understand.

I really have to shake my head in wonder. They can't be that dense, can they?

I've never misunderstood evolution by natural selection, since learning it as a child.

 

Ktulu wrote:
In a different video you have posted on Plantinga, he mentions the frog and fly example, where the fly's beliefs have no bearing on the outcome that it will get eaten by the frog.  That's actually wrong, consider population of flies A and flies B.  Flies A hold the belief that flying over ponds with Lily pads is bad for you, and flies B believe that Lily pads look pretty and pose no threat.  Evolution guaranties that over a few generation flies B with the erroneous belief will be wiped out, and flies A with the true belief will get to carry on their genes.  

Just for the record, KT, a couple of corrections.

1- Platinga actually talks about the frog's beliefs.

2- It was in the first video of him that I posted in this thread.

On topic, yes, you've caught on to his blatant logical fallacy that 'beliefs' are not integral to survival, and would not have a profound effect and influence on the gene pool in evolution of a species, and by extension, the entire ecosystem.

Of course.

If you 'believe' that your baby's best chance at getting into the 'Kingdom' of heaven is to kill them before they sin, that baby will never influence the gene pool.

Platinga is not only dead wrong, he's an utter idiot.

 

Here's the video about the 'Beetle Body' argument for a 'soul' existing wholly apart from the body. Go all the way to the end where he's questioned how 'powerful' an argument he thinks this is.

Sorry if your jaw needs adjustment after this....

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
My jaw is sore.

 

 

 

                   It amazes me what any person can get away with if they can put Phd. after their name and philosopher in front of it.   How meny times did he propose A and B were different and without missing a beat decided that A and B were the same.   I'm with Rednef, this guy is a jawdropping idiot.  And if I may add;  not worth the time of day.

"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?


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
What is Rx?  Is this R

What is Rx?  Is this R acting on x?

What is Gxy?  Is this the same as Gyx?  Do both represent G acting on x and y?

What is Gy?  Is this G acting on y?

Assuming G is acting on things, why did you overload G? (You have a G with two parameters, Gxy, and a G with one parameter, Gy.)

What is the box?

Where is "such that" implied?

What operation is implied between two different groupings?

What is tx?  Is this different from just "t and x?"

What is dftx?  Is this df acting on tx (or on t and x)?  If so, why is df not capitalized like R and G?

 

Due to the fact that you don't have any notation between an object and its descriptor/operator/, I'm having trouble telling what is a descriptor/operator and what is the object, and even what is a collection of objects compared to a single object.  Rx could be a new object, or an operator R acting on x.  Looking at dftx, it could be four objects grouped (through ands?), a single objected labelled by four letters, an operator acting on an object, an operator acting on up to three objects, or even a composition of operators.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Well well well... if it

Well well well... if it isn't the guy who strutted on to the website like a little peacock only to reveal that he wasn't even privy to the sophisticated literature that existed on the topic--that is, until he happened upon theists who actually knew what they were talking about!  Oh how your world must have come crashing down!  Time for me to make it crash once again.

Let's see what little gems of wisdom he has to offer this time around.

rednecK wrote:

If 2 + 2 = 5, then you're really a woman trapped in a man's body.

Exactly.  The statement is true, because by the principle of explosion anything follows from a logical contradiction.  

Quote:
"If it's possible that there be a being like that, it follows by virtue of a certain theorem from Modal Logic, it follows that there is a certain being." Platinga

Plantinga is correct.  This follows by the theorem of modal logic according to which MLp=>Lp.

Quote:
You must confuse knowledge for intelligence and aptitude. That's silly.

I confuse nothing.  If you wish to engage in a discussion with regard to issues the understanding of which includes, at the very least, somewhat of a familiarity with formal logic, then it is your responsibility to actually do the relevant research before you try to debate the issues.  Imagine if I attempted to debate a chemistry teacher on a certain issue pertaining to chemistry; shouldn't I actually study a little chemistry before I engage in the debate, lest I fail to understand the points that s/he is going to make?

What you're guilty of is not ignorance; it's tacitly proclaiming yourself reliable on an issue which you know nothing about. 

Quote:
You're confusing knowledge and intelligence, again.

Articulating your thoughts in 'code' that others are unfamiliar with, is no better than talking in a foreign tongue with your mouth full of marbles.

You don't get it.  My point was that atheists should be familiar with these logical symbols.  If they aren't, then it means that they aren't ready to tackle the God arguments and capriciously proclaim them fallacious.  It means that, beneath your little facade, you only have a cursory understanding of the issues.

Quote:
Labelling others as 'stupid' because you failed to explain yourself in a manner in which your thoughts could be scrutinized, is completely ironic.

Again, the reason they're stupid is because they are saying "FAIL" to arguments of which they have no understanding. 

Quote:
I can't think of any intelligent person who wanted to be taken seriously, that would choose to communicate their ideas in that manner.

The goal was to bait atheists into responding to the post and proclaiming that the argument failed, whilst not even being able to discern the actual meanings of the symbols or the nature of the inferences.  I succeeded.

Quote:
I've debated 'Logic Ninjas' before who somehow neglect admitting (or realizing) that the foundations of logic were derived from empiricism.

Nice try, but your philosophy is about 100 years out of date.  Logical positivism (and all similar schools of empiricism) has been universally rejected ever since it was first presented to a credible metaphysician.

I'm glad you wrote that, though.  It's only to my benefit if you undermine the integrity of your (already horrible) arguments via the advancement of, well, even worse arguments.  That you actually believe the (centuries long) debate between rationalism and empiricism can be resolved in two sentences makes my job easier. 

Quote:
Funny dat, huh?

What's funny is that you actually think this is a knock-down argument--that you've actually devastated me!  LOL

Quote:
IOW, we can't actually demonstrate that something is true, with logic, until reality (actuality) confirms it to be true.

Actually, that's false.  For example, we can demonstrate that "((p-->q) & p)=>q" is a tautology without ever once observing the behavior of the natural world.  That's why there's a notable disparity between arguments that are deductive or inductive, or principles that a priori or a posteriori, or statements that are necessary or contingent, and so forth.  If what you said was so obviously true, then logicians and epistemologists probably would have abandoned these distinctions years ago.  

Has reality ever confirmed that the statement "we can't actually demonstrate that something is true, with logic, until reality (actuality) confirms it to be true" is true?  If so, how?

Quote:
Without science, we can only assume, or hope that our theories are accurate, which is why science trumps speculation not only in simple true/not true dichotomies, but with scope of understanding.

Logic is not speculation, sugarbear.  We know that certain axioms and theorems are true, and at that, we know them to be true with 100% certainty.  Proof doesn't exist in science, yet it does exist in logic and mathematics; isn't that interesting?  


Quote:
Then you're argument for god(s) can't be all that good, obviously. Even if one were to 'accept' that a 'god' created the universe, it does nothing to prove that theists are not in error about every other aspect of their 'god' beliefs.

You don't even know what the argument is (its formalization in the OP notwithstanding); how can you say it's not any good?

Quote:
For example, you couldn't use that as a proof of a 'god' still currently existing, or that a 'god' has 'concern' over what it creates.

You don't know that, unless you can tell me what my argument is.  Have you studied logic?

Quote:
So, in the context of religions, you've not accomplished much. You're not even able to demonstrate that there aren't many 'gods', which would tremendously undermine the doctrines of Abrahamic religions, nor does it demonstrate that there is an afterlife.

How do you know?

Quote:
So, what do you think you really know, about how the universe formed, and can prove to not be a 'false positive'?

The evidence suggests that space, time, matter, and energy all began from an abstract point that we call the "singularity," and that it all has been continuously decompressing for the past 14 billion years.  We know this from our observations of red shifts in other galaxies (which, given what we know about the Doppler Effect, indicates that their distances from one another are growing) and  the cosmic microwave background radiation (which would have been produced if the universe was compressed as it was).

Of course, most God-believers don't seem to give a flying rip how the universe was formed; they want to know what caused it to form the way that it did.  So you can't even get right the actual issues at stake, let alone the pertinent questions. 

Quote:
Perhaps it escapes you that any form of a priori assumption(s) is merely an argument for what (is thought) must be true (within the context of the argument).

May I ask what credibility or expertise you have in the field of epistemology to be able to confidently proclaim, as you do, the implications of certain kinds of statements?

Quote:
This is distinctly different from whether it is 'actually' true, in reality. Which my previous example with the missing puppy clearly demonstrates how you cannot possibly get ahead of yourself with unsupported assumptions.

Hindsight is an infinitely better methodology at 20/20 vision, than foresight. There can be no debate about this.

Except that there is a debate, which evidently you didn't even know existed (much like you weren't even aware of the sophisticated literature as it pertains to the God debate).  I would highly recommend reading up on the debates between rationalists and empiricists; I refuse to engage any further unless you properly do your research.

Quote:
Platinga has admitted that he would not attempt to use his argument as proof of a god, but rather, as a good reason to believe that one exists.

He does not believe philosophical arguments of these sorts, are powerful.

They probably neglect to mention that till after you've finished the philosophy courses, and you're on your way to receiving your "Would you like fries with that?" T shirt when you embark on your post education job search...

Plantinga recognizes that his argument will be unpersuasive, because he knows that atheists like you are idiots and will latch upon any implausible (albeit not indisputable) assumption that can serve as the "God may not exist" thread by which you can hang on.

I'll have to remind all those law school graduates with undergraduate philosophy degrees that Burger King has a position available; who needs that six figure salary?


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Tom,I told

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tom,

I told you I do not write computer games, not that that would invalidate my point about writing computer software requires a solid grasp of logic.

Evidently it doesn't require a solid grasp of logic, because you clearly don't have one.  So are you really a computer programmer, or is this some doppelganger that you've created?

Quote:
I have pointed out many times how it is you who do not grasp Logic at a high enough level to comprehend your misunderstandings. I did it in your previous incarnation when I pointed out that to validly apply S5 modal logic to the OA as you were attempting to do required to already know that 'God' was 'possibly necessary', which would require a level of knowledge of an assumed infinite being which would be utterly beyond the comprehension of a finite mind.

That's just a fanciful way of saying that we don't now whether the existence of God is logically possible, which is about as strong as saying that we don't know whether the existence of aliens on Mars is logically possible.  

Quote:
Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' is not universally 'evidence of absence' is another indicator.

Actually, I clearly stated that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

Quote:
You may comprehend the words in which logic concepts are defined, but you seem to interpret them in a very simplistic way, not stepping back to view it in a broader context, as demonstrated so clearly with the 'absence of evidence' thing. And with the contradiction explosion thing as well.

No, what you're doing is attempting to create a disparity between logic as understood by academic logicians and logic as understood by you.  You are doing this in an effort to justify your errors, so as to say that while your statements were false according to most academic logicians, they were at least true in some mysterious "broader" context that people like myself, Plantinga or a college logic professor, don't understand.  At the end of the day, what you are doing is taking your intuitive sense of things, and instead of acknowledging it as such, you're spuriously presenting it as some viable alternative so as to hide your mistakes.

Seriously, you have to be 70-something years old.  At least have the maturity and courage to admit when you are wrong.  The fact that you are unable to do that is extremely depressing.

The "contradiction explosion" is not controversial at all.  It's provable in propositional logic, for crying out loud!  There is no "broader context" with which the statement is interpreted as false, unless you are appealing to the common senses of people unfamiliar with how logic works--no different than if a student untrained in biology, instead of admitting that his thinking with regard to cell division is in error, says that he has a "broader understanding" of cell division.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Granny Panties wrote:Okay,

Granny Panties wrote:

Okay, my logic professor just gave you a big, fat, F.  Why?  Your first statement - A & ~A - is identically equal to FALSE in all cases.  Therefore, the rest of what you wrote is no proof of anything.  You start any proof with a premise you wish to prove is true.  You can prove nothing if you start out with a premise defined as false.

WRONG!

For all instances of material implication, the conditional statement is false only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.  This means that a conditional statement is true even if it's antecedent is false; for example, "If unicorns exist, then there are one-horned horses" is a true statement, even though "Unicorns exist" is false.

Now, a conditional proof starts by assuming a premise to be true; in logic, you are allowed to assume the truth of a premise, even if that premise is actually false (including false in all cases).  Once you assume a premise to be true, you can prove the truth of a conditional via the inferred premises that fall under the scope of the assumed premise; hence, if squares are round, then Elvis is still alive!

Not that I expect you to actually get this, or anything.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom,I just realized I typo'd

Tom,

I just realized I typo'd about the 'absence of evidence'.

Quote:

Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' is not universally 'evidence of absence' is another indicator.

should have been something like:

Quote:

Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' can definitely be 'evidence of absence' is another indicator.

Too many negatives...

Sorry about that.

The rest of your comments are as tediously ignorant and arrogant as usual.

Axioms are still assumptions, not truths.

The 'contradiction explosion' is explicitly a marker of the limitations of logic, as are Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems:

Quote:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.

All that that Logic can do is prove whether or not some propositions are consistent with the assumptions/axioms of the system. And even that, as Goedel showed, is incomplete. It cannot prove its own axioms are true, let alone anything like the existence of God. The chimera of absolute knowledge via logic really has its hooks into you, so further discussion is clearly pointless.

Bye.

 

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Your

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' can definitely be 'evidence of absence' is another indicator.

No, in a philosophical discussion such as this, absence is evidence is never evidence of absence--not in any way, shape, or form.  It's a fallacy; what you're saying is like saying that an appeal to popularity of Y can definitely be evidence of Y, even though in general it is not evidence of Y.  

Using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is known as an "ad ignorantium."  

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Now there are certain pragmatic considerations in, say, science or a court of law which make it okay to assume something unless the opposite is proven true.  But these are strictly methodological, similar to how in methodological naturalism it is assumed for the sake of the practice that everything is naturally explainable.  However, once you extend this beyond the scope of the methodology, such as in philosophical discussions or the like, fallacies and flimsy argumentation will ensue.

The problem, I think, is that far too many atheists construe the God issue to be something that it's not.  The question of God's existence is not a scientific question.  So it's just laughable when atheists continually regurgitate irrelevant incantations such as "We need evidence to support the hypothesis," "This doesn't explain anything in nature; it just raises more questions," etc.  

Quote:
Axioms are still assumptions, not truths.

Axioms are reasonably assumed to be true; are you claiming that the law of non-contradiction might be false?

Quote:
The 'contradiction explosion' is explicitly a marker of the limitations of logic

No it's not!  You are just saying that because you assume intuitively that nothing can be entailed by a contradiction, such that when I disprove that, instead of admitting your shortfall, you claim that something is wrong with logic or that there's some mysterious broader context of which everyone except for you is unaware.

Regarding Godel's incompleteness theorem, to which you consistent latch on, all he was saying is that any axiom system does not contain within itself proof of its own axioms.  He is not saying that we shouldn't trust logic; indeed, that would be a paradox, considering that he uses logic to make that very assertion.  And he is not saying that nothing in reality can be deduced from logic alone; in fact, he put forth his own version of the ontological argument.

Are you going to continue appealing to his authority, given that he was a theist?  

Quote:
All that that Logic can do is prove whether or not some propositions are consistent with the assumptions/axioms of the system. And even that, as Goedel showed, is incomplete. It cannot prove its own axioms are true

That's about as trivial as arguing that science only proves certain assumptions to be consistent with our perceptions; however, as idealists such as Immanuel Kant have shown, our perception may not reflect the world-in-itself.

Quote:
let alone anything like the existence of God.

Okay, where does Godel say that?  And how is this consistent with the fact that he endorsed the ontological argument for the existence of God?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol. There are so many

Lol. There are so many flaws, like always. I'll let someone else refute that crap. I can only stomach so much stupidity from ignorant theists.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Lol. There are

Vastet wrote:
Lol. There are so many flaws, like always. I'll let someone else refute that crap. I can only stomach so much stupidity from ignorant theists.

Not all of us were smart enough to become tax preparers... was that your high school major?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nope, a learning experience

Nope, a learning experience so I don't have to pay someone to do my taxes for me. I also got paid for the education, so it was win/win.
Not that I'm surprised a theist is against learning or bettering oneself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope, a

Vastet wrote:
Nope, a learning experience so I don't have to pay someone to do my taxes for me. I also got paid for the education, so it was win/win. Not that I'm surprised a theist is against learning or bettering oneself.

Face it.  Your job is pathetic, your life is pathetic, you have no real academic education, and you'll retain your virginity into your 40's.  

Ain't life grand?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Projecting eh? I'm sure

Projecting eh? I'm sure things will turn around for you. You just need to learn logic, and how to apply it to your delusions. Once you get past that you'll have much more success in life.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So the absence of any hint

So the absence of any hint of a second sun in the sky is not evidence that there is no such thing? Can you show me a logical argument to that effect?

Goedel was not so much about the inability of a formal system to prove its own validity, but the ability to formulate within the system statements that are undecideable, that cannot be proved either way. It is related to the idea of not being able to prove the validty of the system itself, but it goes further.

Wiki wrote:

That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that obtains in arithmetic, but which is not provable in that system.

I did not assert that Goedel said anything like that about God, and I knew he was a Theist - so what? I am not 'appealing to his authority' but to the facts about formal systems that he demonstrated, and that have been accepted and confirmed.

You are one appealing to authority all the time, whether it is the authority of academic philosophers who you say contradict my assertions, or the authority of some old writings from a few thousand years ago from the Middle East, or some guy whose main claim to fame is a radio show.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Someone really needs to be

Someone really needs to be highly educated to figure out such a common sense issue in determining the existence of a being you can't touch smell taste see or hear.

Do all the math you like to change the sky but... the sky is still blue.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin