# Atheist's flawed logic.

desertwolf9
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-11-15
Offline
Atheist's flawed logic.

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline
Mykey wrote:Kevin R Brown

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

If you want people here to belive in your God, proving that God is a requirement.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:MyKey

BobSpence1 wrote:

MyKey wrote:

You said that what one can only do is prove that the proposition is consistent with the other premises. Do you know what logical consistency means?

A set of propositions is logically consistent if it does not contain any contradictions. IOW, it should not be possible to construct a valid proof based on some combination of those propositions which proves P, and find another valid proof based on that same or another combination of propositions in the set which proves NOT P.

Yes. However, you said that such a proof can only prove consistent statements. This is  untrue. proofs  do more than that. it proves that the statement is true insofar as premises that it is derived from are true.  Any such conclusion is inescapably true and consistent.

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline
HisWillness wrote:Mykey

HisWillness wrote:

Mykey wrote:
inductive arguments cannot be invalid.  validity is a term for deductive arguments.

Okay, but when you say "geez, guys, this is simple deductive reasoning, can't you even do that?" I'm primed to talk about deductive reasoning, and I figure that's where you're going.

I never said "this is simply deductive reasoning..etc"  I said it was simple inductive reasoning.

Quote:
No. The conclusion from your two statements introduces new information that comes from outside of the two statement
s.

Which is fine within inductive logic.  New information is to be avoided within deductive logic.  deductive logic preserves. inductive logic produces.

Quote:
You have a stronger argument if you say that since you don't know if others have conscious experiences, then you must be the only one who does. Just because you've experienced many varied experiences doesn't mean they encompass all of consciousness (regardless of the type of logic you're using). Adding information about the kinds of experiences you've had doesn't actually change the quantity of your experiences to "all". I've seen many things. To assume that I've seen everything because I've seen many things wouldn't follow.

the argument follows the standard inductive formula

All of the ducks i have seen are feathered

I have seen a large and varied grouping of ducks

probably all ducks are feathered.

if the second premise is that I have seen all of the ducks, then the argument becomes deductive rather than inductive.

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

If you want people here to belive in your God, proving that God is a requirement.

Some people believe that God exists without some sort of proof. Consequently, it seems that proving God is unnecessary for some people to believe that God exists. Furthermore, this thread is not intended to prove the existence of God and hence I will neither hijack it nor participate within the proofs for God's existence.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

Mykey wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

If you want people here to belive in your God, proving that God is a requirement.

Some people believe that God exists without some sort of proof. Consequently, it seems that proving God is unnecessary for some people to believe that God exists. Furthermore, this thread is not intended to prove the existence of God and hence I will neither hijack it nor participate within the proofs for God's existence.

No, the point of this thread was (summarizing the OP):

1. I have no evidence that God exists.

2. I have no evidence that you (the posters on the forum) exist.

3. The posters on the forum exist.

Therefore God exists.

Then it degenearted into you and Bob agreeing in circles around each other until you created your own system of logic where internal inconsistencies are OK because you say so.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

BobSpence
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Mykey wrote:BobSpence1

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

MyKey wrote:

You said that what one can only do is prove that the proposition is consistent with the other premises. Do you know what logical consistency means?

A set of propositions is logically consistent if it does not contain any contradictions. IOW, it should not be possible to construct a valid proof based on some combination of those propositions which proves P, and find another valid proof based on that same or another combination of propositions in the set which proves NOT P.

Yes. However, you said that such a proof can only prove consistent statements. This is  untrue. proofs  do more than that. it proves that the statement is true insofar as premises that it is derived from are true.  Any such conclusion is inescapably true and consistent.

What is your problem? You are agreeing with me when you find it necessary to add the extra condition "insofar as premises that it is derived from are true". IOW, by itself the logic cannot prove the result is true, since it cannot prove those premises are true, only that they are consistent.

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

BobSpence
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Mykey wrote:HisWillness

Mykey wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Mykey wrote:
inductive arguments cannot be invalid.  validity is a term for deductive arguments.

Okay, but when you say "geez, guys, this is simple deductive reasoning, can't you even do that?" I'm primed to talk about deductive reasoning, and I figure that's where you're going.

I never said "this is simply deductive reasoning..etc"  I said it was simple inductive reasoning.

Quote:
No. The conclusion from your two statements introduces new information that comes from outside of the two statement
s.

Which is fine within inductive logic.  New information is to be avoided within deductive logic.  deductive logic preserves. inductive logic produces.

Quote:
You have a stronger argument if you say that since you don't know if others have conscious experiences, then you must be the only one who does. Just because you've experienced many varied experiences doesn't mean they encompass all of consciousness (regardless of the type of logic you're using). Adding information about the kinds of experiences you've had doesn't actually change the quantity of your experiences to "all". I've seen many things. To assume that I've seen everything because I've seen many things wouldn't follow.

the argument follows the standard inductive formula

All of the ducks i have seen are feathered

I have seen a large and varied grouping of ducks

probably all ducks are feathered.

if the second premise is that I have seen all of the ducks, then the argument becomes deductive rather than inductive.

The problem with your particular argument is that the idea that you could somehow actually experience something which was not your own experience, which is problematic, to say the least. So the only conscious experience you could have would be your own, virtually by definition. So until you can show that the idea that you could experience something which is not your experience even makes sense, the observation that all the experiences you experience are your own in no way justifies the conclusion that there are probably no experineces that are not yours.

It's a bit like saying "everything I have seen has been visible to my eyes, I have seen a wide range of things, therefore everything probably is visible to my eyes".

You see, the ability of any argument, deductive or inductive, to arrive at a clear conclusion, is limited by the nature of the premises.

Deductive arguments only demonstrate truth if the premises are true. They also fail in different ways if a premise refers to the argument itself, as in "this argument is true", or is a statement like the classic "The barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself. Who shaves the barber?".

This is an extension of my point that it is not enough to have a valid logical argument, or a inductive argument which correctly applies the probabilities of its input statements to its conclusion, the inputs in each case must meet certain requirements in themselves.

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

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:Mykey

BobSpence1 wrote:

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

MyKey wrote:

You said that what one can only do is prove that the proposition is consistent with the other premises. Do you know what logical consistency means?

A set of propositions is logically consistent if it does not contain any contradictions. IOW, it should not be possible to construct a valid proof based on some combination of those propositions which proves P, and find another valid proof based on that same or another combination of propositions in the set which proves NOT P.

Yes. However, you said that such a proof can only prove consistent statements. This is  untrue. proofs  do more than that. it proves that the statement is true insofar as premises that it is derived from are true.  Any such conclusion is inescapably true and consistent.

What is your problem? You are agreeing with me when you find it necessary to add the extra condition "insofar as premises that it is derived from are true". IOW, by itself the logic cannot prove the result is true, since it cannot prove those premises are true, only that they are consistent.

let me put it this way: logic can show consistent statements and also show statements that are necessitated from  earlier ones. this is more than mere consistency.  this is deduction. it is necessitation.

p if and only if q entails if p then q.  It's not just a matter of consistency.

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline

Mykey wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

If you want people here to belive in your God, proving that God is a requirement.

Some people believe that God exists without some sort of proof. Consequently, it seems that proving God is unnecessary for some people to believe that God exists. Furthermore, this thread is not intended to prove the existence of God and hence I will neither hijack it nor participate within the proofs for God's existence.

No, the point of this thread was (summarizing the OP):

1. I have no evidence that God exists.

2. I have no evidence that you (the posters on the forum) exist.

3. The posters on the forum exist.

Therefore God exists.

Then it degenearted into you and Bob agreeing in circles around each other until you created your own system of logic where internal inconsistencies are OK because you say so.

nonsense. the poster never gave that argument.

Mykey
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:The problem

BobSpence1 wrote:
The problem with your particular argument is that the idea that you could somehow actually experience something which was not your own experience, which is problematic, to say the least. So the only conscious experience you could have would be your own, virtually by definition.

Yes, but I do not see how that's problematic for the argument.  It basically ensures the truthfulness of the premise.

Quote:
So until you can show that the idea that you could experience something which is not your experience even makes sense, the observation that all the experiences you experience are your own in no way justifies the conclusion that there are probably no experineces that are not yours.

Well, since premise one, alone, is not meant to justify the conclusion, then I need not argue that it does justify the conclusion.

Quote:
It's a bit like saying "everything I have seen has been visible to my eyes, I have seen a wide range of things, therefore everything probably is visible to my eyes".

A wide and varied range of things.  All you seem to be illustrating is the problem of inductive reasoning.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

Mykey wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

If you want people here to belive in your God, proving that God is a requirement.

Some people believe that God exists without some sort of proof. Consequently, it seems that proving God is unnecessary for some people to believe that God exists. Furthermore, this thread is not intended to prove the existence of God and hence I will neither hijack it nor participate within the proofs for God's existence.

No, the point of this thread was (summarizing the OP):

1. I have no evidence that God exists.

2. I have no evidence that you (the posters on the forum) exist.

3. The posters on the forum exist.

Therefore God exists.

Then it degenearted into you and Bob agreeing in circles around each other until you created your own system of logic where internal inconsistencies are OK because you say so.

nonsense. the poster never gave that argument.

I see that you didn't read the OP too closely. As the posts provide proof of our existence he's extrapolating that to his God. He just doesn't mention it directly.

Meanwhile, are you agreeing that you've created your own system of logic where you can make internally inconsistent arguments and they OK becaus you like them?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

BobSpence
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Mykey wrote:BobSpence1

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The problem with your particular argument is that the idea that you could somehow actually experience something which was not your own experience, which is problematic, to say the least. So the only conscious experience you could have would be your own, virtually by definition.

Yes, but I do not see how that's problematic for the argument.  It basically ensures the truthfulness of the premise.

Any premise that is inherently incoherent, poorly framed, etc renders any conclusion from the argument, whether inductive or deductive, similarly questionable.

Quote:

Quote:
So until you can show that the idea that you could experience something which is not your experience even makes sense, the observation that all the experiences you experience are your own in no way justifies the conclusion that there are probably no experineces that are not yours.

Well, since premise one, alone, is not meant to justify the conclusion, then I need not argue that it does justify the conclusion.

Are you serious? That would only be true if that premise was irrelevant to the argument!

Quote:

Quote:
It's a bit like saying "everything I have seen has been visible to my eyes, I have seen a wide range of things, therefore everything probably is visible to my eyes".

A wide and varied range of things.  All you seem to be illustrating is the problem of inductive reasoning.

Poorly formed premises are a problem for any argument, inductive or deductive, no matter how correctly the argument itself is structured.

EDIT: IOW, if any if the premises for any argument can be shown to be faulty, the conclusion is of questionable value, unless it can be shown that in a particular case, the problematic premise had little or no influence on the conclusion. This can readily be tested by trying several different assertions in place of the premise in question, and run thru the argument again.

My final point I keep trying to ram home here is that logic is necessary but not sufficient to generate an improved approximation the 'truth' about reality, outside of the domain of definitions and deductive systems like math, and logic itself.

So I don't care much how much someone throws the terms 'logical' and 'illogical' and derivatives around, if they do not squarely address the issue of evidence, data, etc, without which we would be as misguided as most of the ancient Greek philosophers who thought pure reason alone would lead to truth, which is bollocks.

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

daedalus
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

Yes, but this direct, observable, testable, proveable sentance in response to your question is proof that I exist.

Pray to your God and see if he responds.  I bet he won't.  Or, is that evidence of his existence... and theist logic?

HAHAHAHAHA   <<<<<That's me laughing at you.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov

Vermilion
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
desertwolf9, This argument

desertwolf9, This argument is old and ridiculous. Here's why:

You are pre-supposing in your argument that the proof for god is just as concrete as a post on a forum. This is riduculous. Why? Because we have evidence for how forums are made, how they operate, and really have no reason to believe that each post is not made by a different person. Unless they are suspicious in some way possibly. Not to mention, this post as evidence for me is tangible and universal. You can show it to your friends, or even your enemies, and they could not deny that there is indeed a post here that seems to be from a human by the alias 'Vermilion'. However, when you pray to god, there is not universal evidence. There is only disputable evidence all with much better explanations. When 'miracles' happen, there are always more feasible explanations than "god". Start praying for an amputee to grow a limb back, and just see how much evidence you can produce for a 'god' answering that prayer. Sure, 'God' supposedly doesn't answer all prayers, but a million people prayed for a million different amputees to grow their limb back, would you ever expect one to grow back? Of course not, because there is no real proof for god. Period.

Please consider as Sam Harris says... Why we have phrases like 'wishful thinking' or delusion. Self-deception is called self-deception because the person being decieved doesn't realize they are the ones doing the decieving! The bottom line is that if you claim to have evidence for something, it better be universal to both friend and foe, otherwise there is no reason to call you crazy.

I wonder... What if a Muslim made the same argument for Allah? Or if I made the same argument for a teapot orbiting jupiter? If I have my own self evidence that you can never sense yourself, then it's bullshit evidence, end of story.

Diagoras23
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
Offline
Yes

desertwolf9 wrote:

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

Yes.

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?

HisWillness
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
Offline
Mykey wrote:the argument

Mykey wrote:

the argument follows the standard inductive formula

All of the ducks i have seen are feathered

I have seen a large and varied grouping of ducks

probably all ducks are feathered.

See, this argument is fine as an inductive argument. I have no problem with it. Your argument, however, is like saying:

All of the ducks I have seen are feathered

I have seen a large and varied grouping of ducks

I'm probably the only person who can see the ducks.

That introduces new information. If you followed the standard formula, you'd get what I outlined above:

All things I have experienced are mine

I have experienced a large and varied group of experiences

Probably all of my experiences will be mine.

At least the above conclusion is connected to the previous statements. Your conclusion, however, does not follow at all.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence