Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

I was thinking about this whole topic, and i couldn't get my head around one aspect of it all...so i thought i would ask and see...

the thing is... the main problem with the big bang theory is as far as iv heard is that at some point there needs to be a start of things, i.e what was before the big bang? if thats so, why does it make more sense for there to be a god, and if so, what was there at the start of gods reign of terror? both theories fall over in the same way... except one says, we can't explain that yet, and the other says ah hah thats proof there is a god.

the other thing that strikes me is that both sides seem to focus on god rather then religions, to me if there is god or not is not nearly as important as religions role in the world, i think personally religion is what the athiest should be attacking/asking question about not weather there is a god or not.

I see myself as an athiest, but the main reason is not because i reject the idea of god (or belief in something, even one's self) but more so becuase i reject the religions attached to said god/s, my real issue isnt a god of some sort, but of religion. i see them as two separate and different issue. i can understand why people want religion, why people believe in god/s.

another thought i wanted to bring up is this: would you say it is fair to state that a higher portion of people who are : poor, uneducated, desperate, starving or poverty stricken have a higher likelihood to be deeply religious. If so why do you think thats the case?

@Pindar: You should realize that your position is quite weak here. Not only are you claiming to have proven the existence of God - something that the most renowned philosophers of history have failed at, but you also claim to be pointing out fallacies in "my statements" when what you truly criticise are things I've quoted right out of the literature on logic, accepted by all experts in the field of logic. When approaching a proof of God's existence, one must by nature be careful and critical, since nobody before has ever succeeded in proving his existence (or nonexistence for that matter). Since you were so stubbornly maintaining your view that you had proven his existence, I for a while thought that maybe you had made at least some progress in the field, but it turns out you haven't. It turns out that I've wasted my time. You've shown that you don't know the definition of the word "proof", yet you claim to have a proof of God's existence; you've shown that you don't understand the necessary conditions for a statement to be true, yet you claim to have proven a statement that God exists to be true; and you claim to know the terminology of logic, yet you don't understand it when I use it in my replies to your posts. Seeing as you repeatedly claim to know the terminology of logic rather than admitting you don't, I'll here explain in unambigious, precise terminology why you need to have both true premises and a correct deduction in order to have proven the conclusion to be true:
((p => c) and p) => (c is true),
but:
(p => c) => (c is either true or false)
If you understand logic you'll understand the above argument (which is a basic logical argument present in probably every textbook on logic that has been made), while if you don't understand logic terminology you can admit it and I can explain it again in natural language despite the ambiguousness and impreciseness of natural language. You're entitled to hold the opinion that all logic experts are wrong, but if you don't use correct logic rules throughout your conclusion and interpretation of the meaning of the result then you haven't made a conclusion by using logic. Then you have used your own rules, and you have proven the existence of God by arbitrary ontologic rules of your own making, and not by logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The above are meaningless. Yet you asserted they are: "perfectly valid logical arguments...".

---

If you don't even understand those examples, which are quite basic, I think you've proven beyond any doubt that your claims of knowing anything about logic are incorrect according to all textbooks on logic and all experts within the subject. If you don't understand the difference between valid logical argument and true conclusion I'm afraid you need to pick up a book on the basics of logic before you can understand anything of what I'm saying in this thread. They are meaningless, yes, but perfectly valid. They served to illustrate the definition of valid logical argument versus a logical argument that isn't meaningless.

As for your proof, a first necessary stop to be able to refute or confirm it is to rewrite it complete with three sections: first definitions of the words, then all assumptions made, then finally a part with the actual deduction steps divided in separate logical arguments. Since you keep refuting basic logic knowledge I throw at you, quoted directly from a logic textbook written by some of the most famous logic experts, I don't think you're capable of rewriting your proof in this way without first seeing an example of how it's done. I'll therefore do the first sketch of a rewriting for you and you can then change it if you think it doesn't mean the same thing as what you initially tried to say, until you're pleased with the argument in that it means what you initially tried to say, and I and all others who know something about logic and philosophy here are pleased with the completeness of the argument and the list of assumptions. After we've together presented your attempt at a proof into a formal and complete form and it according to your opinion means the same thing as your original incomplete "proof", the next step is to proceed and evaluate it.

PINDAR'S PROOF COMPLETED AND REWRITTEN IN A MORE FORMAL WAY

DEFINITIONS:
- contingent being - something that exists, and that has either existed always, or must have been caused by something else that existed at least at the time when the contingent being started to exist, but that cause doesn't necessarily have to still exist today. A contingent being can cause another contingent being.
- non-contingent being - something that exists, and that isn't caused by something else, but can cause a contingent being. What happens when the non-contingent being causes a contingent being isn't known, but unless more info is provided we can't know whether it's consumed and stops existing when it yields something, or continues to exist when it yields something
- necessary being - seems to have the same definition as non-contingent being. Therefore I'll replace it with non-contingent being where it occurs, in order to lower the level of confusion the proof attempt attempts to stir up to hide its fallacies
- God - is a non-contingent being, but a non-contingent being isn't necessarily God. A God has the additional properties of being almighty and good.
- being caused - you use it in the meaning "something else making something start to exist"

ASSUMPTIONS MADE:
a1. the cause and effect model is the exact truth. This is a dubious assumption since the continuous interaction model has mostly replaced cause and effect today - cause and effect is a discretized simplification of the continuous interaction model
a2. only things that exist at the time x is created can cause x
a3. no contingent being has existed forever (note this is necessary, because it suffices to have one contingent being that existed always to cause all other contingent beings)
a4. the definition of contingent being isn't a contradiction or otherwise impossible
a5. things that exist are either contingent or non-contingent beings. This must be listed as an assumption since contingent and non-contingent beings aren't exactly each other's complements in the properties outside the existence requirement, but only almost complements of each other. Not listing it under assumptions would be a fallacy.
a6. an infinite chain of the type mentioned in c4 below is impossible

PROOF ATTEMPT:
c1. contingent beings exist - this follows directly from the definition of contingent being and assumption a4

no contingent being has existed forever (a3)
contingent beings exist (c1)
only things that exist at the time x is created can cause x (a2)
==================
c2. a contingent being must thus have been caused by something else than itself, and that something must have existed at the time that the contingent being started to exist

contingent beings exist
c2
things that exist are either contingent or non-contingent beings (a5)
==================
c3. every contingent being must have been caused by either a contingent or a non-contingent being

c3
==================
c4. either there is an infinite chain of cause and effect, or at least one non-contingent being caused the first contingent being that existed, but that non-contingent being doesn't necessarily have to still exist today

c4
an infinite chain of the type mentioned in c4 is impossible
==================
c5. at least one non-contingent being must have existed at the time just before the first contingent being started to exist, but that non-contingent being doesn't necessarily have to still exist today

This is a valid and complete logical deduction, however the result of it isn't that God must exist, or that a non-contingent being must exist, or even that a non-contingent being must have existed by the time the first contingent being started to exist. It's a statement that says that "assuming the list of assumptions below are true, a non-contingent being must have existed once but doesn't necessarily exist now":
- the cause and effect model is the exact truth. This is a dubious assumption since the continuous interaction model has mostly replaced cause and effect today - cause and effect is a discretized simplification of the continuous interaction model
- only things that exist at the time x is created can cause x
- no contingent being has existed forever
- things that exist are either contingent or non-contingent beings. This must be listed as an assumption since contingent and non-contingent beings aren't exactly each other's complements in the properties outside the existence requirement, but only almost complements of each other. Not listing it under assumptions would be a fallacy.
- an infinite chain of the type mentioned in c4 below is impossible
- none of the definitions are contradictions in themselves or otherwise impossible

In order to prove that c5 is true it's necessary to first prove that all the assumptions that c5 is based on are true.

The above is an example of the sections needed in a complete proof in a serious philosophical discussion, so you should be able to mimic it and present your own proof in a similar way so that it is more complete and it's clear under which assumptions you claim your conclusion to be true, as well as a more clear division of the steps not into just the order if which they're performed, but into the separate logical deductions that are being carried out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think our exchanges constitute a philosophical debate. I do think charging another with lying is inappropriate.

---

I agree.

Any further accusations that people are lying when they are simply differing in opinion will be dealt with harshly.

This has been a constructive and fascinating debate, but is in new danger of sliding downhill. I would be loathe to lock it.

Let's keep to the arguments, and not attack the person behind them.

:bow:

Can you please also deal harshly with people who keep accusing others of personal attacks when they merely show fallacies in the arguments of the other? When I show a fallacy in Pindar's arguments it isn't a personal attack. But Pindar has accused me of personal attacks in every single post since I started showing the fallacies in his arguments. He probably knows I'm not making a personal attack on him when I'm showing the fallacies in his arguments.

Wiki: "A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else."

Thanks
:bow: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Can you please also deal harshly with people who keep accusing others of personal attacks when they merely show fallacies in the arguments of the other? When I show a fallacy in Pindar's arguments it isn't a personal attack. But Pindar has accused me of personal attacks in every single post since I started showing the fallacies in his arguments. He probably knows I'm not making a personal attack on him when I'm showing the fallacies in his arguments.

Wiki: "A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else."

Thanks
:bow: :2thumbsup:

---

I will deal fairly with everyone to the best of my ability.

As per your definition, I have seen no evidence from any direction of an intention to be deceitful, which is why accusations of lying are out of place.

Now, back to the debate.

:bow:

ok, I've edited out the word lie and replaced it with "incorrect according to all textbooks on logic and all experts within the subject". I hope this is an allowed phrasing :2thumbsup:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

ok, I've edited out the word lie and replaced it with "incorrect according to all textbooks on logic and all experts within the subject". I hope this is an allowed phrasing :2thumbsup:

:bow:

---

Much better, thank you. :bow:

Though I suspect you may need your list of references to hand. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@Pindar: You should realize that your position is quite weak here. Not only are you claiming to have proven the existence of God - something that the most renowned philosophers of history have failed at, but you also claim to be pointing out fallacies in "my statements" when what you truly criticise are things I've quoted right out of the literature on logic, accepted by all experts in the field of logic.

---

When one is quoting out of literature it is normally approiate to cite the reference, which I have yet to see in your posts.

Quote:

---

PINDAR'S PROOF COMPLETED AND REWRITTEN IN A MORE FORMAL WAY

---

Actually I think Pinder's arguement follows this particlur course of logic then the one you are attempting to paint.

http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

When one is quoting out of literature it is normally approiate to cite the reference, which I have yet to see in your posts.

---

It isn't normal to quote the source when using information that should be available in almost every single basic course text book on the subject. But it is normal to show some source when asked for it, and since you're doing so I'll provide wiki links, since it's the quickest way.

The meaning of a logical argument/valid deduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
From wiki: "In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation."

The meaning of a proof/evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
From wiki: "In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true"

What the sources say is exactly what I've been explaining: a valid deduction alone does not mean the conclusion must be necessarily true. A valid deduction AND true premises are required for the conclusion to be necessarily true. In order to prove something, it's necessary to both show that the premises are true and the form of the deduction is valid. I will give the examples again:

example 1 - valid argument but false premises giving a false conclusion
1+1=3
3+1=5
=====
therefore 1+1+1=5

example 2 - true premises but invalid deduction giving a false conclusion
1+1=2
2+1=2
=====
therefore 10+1=1000

example 3 - true premises AND valid deduction gives a conclusion that is necessarily true
1+1=2
2+1=3
=====
therefore 1+1+1=3

These examples should illustrate that both the requirements are necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually I think Pinder's arguement follows this particlur course of logic then the one you are attempting to paint.

http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

---

Thanks for the link! I'll have a look at it, from a quick glance it seems to be about ontology and the connection between logic and ontology.

Edit: that link was very interesting. Indeed, it takes up some of the fallacies I spotted in Pindar's argument, including:
"The real problem is that the argument makes an assumption that is not brought out explicitly. It assumes that it is possible for an omniscient rational individual to exist, where omniscience includes knowledge about one's own existence. So what the argument really seems to show is that (for God as defined [this text used the definition that God is defined as an omniscient and rational individual, i.e. not the definition of the Judeo-Christian God]). IF it is possible for a rational omniscient being to exist THEN necessarily a rational omniscient being exists."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

It isn't normal to quote the source when using information that should be available in almost every single basic course text book on the subject. But it is normal to show some source when asked for it, and since you're doing so I'll provide wiki links, since it's the quickest way.

---

You claimed that your view is from every known expert in the field, however it seems your missing the point that was demonstrated in the link provided. You can of course state you find that postion not to be valid - but that has not been your claim in this thread.

Quote:

---

What the sources say is exactly what I've been explaining: a valid deduction alone does not mean the conclusion must be necessarily true. A valid deduction AND true premises are required for the conclusion to be necessarily true. In order to prove something, it's necessary to both show that the premises are true and the form of the deduction is valid. I will give the examples again:

---

That was not the question asked. Nor does it address Pinder's arguement, your claim is that his arguement is not valid - however his arguement uses a very basic form of logic and ontology, one that is easily followed, even if it does contain some fallacies in logic.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the link! I'll have a look at it, from a quick glance it seems to be about ontology and the connection between logic and ontology.

---

Which is why I posted the linked given this quote;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinder

If you reject the logical designates for distinguishing the mode of being then you have rejected basic logic regarding ontology.

---

You can of course reject ontology and the logic premise behind it - but your base claim toward Pinder's is indeed a false conclusion, based upon my own readings on philosophy, logic, and religion. You should address his arguement not his base of knowledge.

Edit: the last few postings by both you and Pinder have been an esclation in the tit for tat accusations based upon base of knowledge. Which I find normally derails a thread very quickly. As I read the thread I understand both of your arguements concerning the subject - however Pinder has remained consistent with his approach - he is not using science to prove or disprove religion or more important God. He is simply staying away from that course - he is approaching the subject soley on the Philosphocial and Metaphysical aspect of the subject, in this course he is staying true to the base logic used for centuries in arguing a pro postion for a diety. This is valid technique given the nature of the material. I do see you attempting to interject science into the discussion and his refusal to steer toward your arguement, which has lead to your frustation in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

I was thinking about this whole topic, and i couldn't get my head around one aspect of it all...so i thought i would ask and see...

the thing is... the main problem with the big bang theory is as far as iv heard is that at some point there needs to be a start of things, i.e what was before the big bang? if thats so, why does it make more sense for there to be a god, and if so, what was there at the start of gods reign of terror? both theories fall over in the same way... except one says, we can't explain that yet, and the other says ah hah thats proof there is a god.

---

Hi Beren (Isn't Beren the son of Barahir?)

There are different views on the highs and lows of the Big Bang, but your essential question is a good one. Any stance that posits an X as a beginning point needs to explain why that X occupies the first position. If the Big Bang is taken as the beginning then the issue: whence came the Big Bang is apparent. For the theist the same issue must be dealt with, but the posit God is not the same as the Big Bang. The difference is in the essential meaning of the things posited. God by definition is something taken as eternal, ontically independent and prior to any created (something with a beginning) order. The Big Bang lacks these traits. It therefore has serious coherence issues.

Quote:

---

the other thing that strikes me is that both sides seem to focus on god rather then religions, to me if there is god or not is not nearly as important as religions role in the world, i think personally religion is what the athiest should be attacking/asking question about not weather there is a god or not.

---

If one is discussing atheism or theism then God is the natural focus. Religion is also interesting, but it is a different question.

Quote:

---

I see myself as an athiest, but the main reason is not because i reject the idea of god (or belief in something, even one's self) but more so becuase i reject the religions attached to said god/s, my real issue isnt a god of some sort, but of religion. i see them as two separate and different issue. i can understand why people want religion, why people believe in god/s.

---

This doesn't sound like atheism, but a base rejection of religion.

Quote:

---

another thought i wanted to bring up is this: would you say it is fair to state that a higher portion of people who are : poor, uneducated, desperate, starving or poverty stricken have a higher likelihood to be deeply religious. If so why do you think thats the case?

---

I think that is probably right. If you look at the list you provided I think there is a common denominator. I think this is dependence. Dependence, whether economic, educational, sociological, physical etc. could naturally lead one to seek meaning in the religious sphere. Conversely, as one feels independent the 'need' for religion dissipates.

One could argue the a dependence rubric informs most if not all religious stances. For example: in Christianity the devotee recognizes his dependence on Christ to overcome sin and death. In Buddhism the disciple recognizes his dependence on the Eight Fold Path in order to overcome dukka (typically translated as suffering).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@Pindar: You should realize that your position is quite weak here. Not only are you claiming to have proven the existence of God - something that the most renowned philosophers of history have failed at, but you also claim to be pointing out fallacies in "my statements" when what you truly criticise are things I've quoted right out of the literature on logic, accepted by all experts in the field of logic.

---

Proofs for the existence of God are quite old and varied. A number of philosophers have done this. To cite a few simple examples: Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas and Leibniz all put forward arguments that my one proof plays off of. The reason I gave the proof I have over other options is because it is accessible to a person who may not have formal study in philosophy.

If one claims they are quoting from the literature of logic then they should: one, use quotation marks. Two, provide the citation. You have not done so. If you would like to do this we can revisit what you consider coherent/relevant.

Attendant to this second point is your claim lying is a standard vernacular for logic used by "all experts within the subject". I asked for three citations...where are they?

Quote:

---

You've shown that you don't know the definition of the word "proof", yet you claim to have a proof of God's existence...

---

I do know the definition of proof. A proof is a valid argument. A valid argument is something where the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. I have done just this regarding the existence of God.

Quote:

---

you've shown that you don't understand the necessary conditions for a statement to be true, yet you claim to have proven a statement that God exists to be true;

---

A proof is not concerned with truth. I have explained this. I have made no such claim that "God exists to be true". You are confused.

Quote:

---

Seeing as you repeatedly claim to know the terminology of logic rather than admitting you don't, I'll here explain in unambigious, precise terminology why you need to have both true premises and a correct deduction in order to have proven the conclusion to be true:
((p => c) and p) => (c is true),
but:
(p => c) => (c is either true or false)
If you understand logic you'll understand the above argument...

---

A proof turns on validity not truth.

So you know: the above is not an argument. An argument means one needs to have a conclusion. Such is absent above. You have mixed up statements and arguments. Statements can be true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid.

Quote:

---

Then you have used your own rules, and you have proven the existence of God by arbitrary ontologic rules of your own making, and not by logic.

---

The proof doesn't operate off of any invented rules from me. The proof is quite simple in its form and the terms are common for the topic being quite old i.e sourced to Aristotle.

Quote:

---

They are meaningless, yes, but perfectly valid. They served to illustrate the definition of valid logical argument versus a logical argument that isn't meaningless.

---

Is the 'they' above referring to this response of mine with examples of your thought process:

Quote:

---

"god exists
the sky is blue
=======
therefore god exists

and

gravity doesn't exist
no other forces that affect something floating in the air exist
============
therefore I'll not fall to the ground if I jump from a church tower

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

The above are meaningless. Yet you asserted they are: "perfectly valid logical arguments...".

---

[/quote]

Meaningless means incoherent. The above are not valid. The first asserts its own conclusion (begs the question). The second has no logical entailment, but is a series of random statements. These are but two examples of a common pattern. I'm sure you feel logic is important and I would agree, but it seems clear you've never formally studied logic. Your statements are random and confused more often that not.

Quote:

---

As for your proof, a first necessary stop to be able to refute or confirm it is to rewrite it complete with three sections...

---

No, the proof is quite simple and straight forward. It doesn't require any reworking. If you wish to challenge there are contingent beings, causality or something else that is fine. The proof concludes: there must be a necessary being. I proffered that such can only be God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

It isn't normal to quote the source when using information that should be available in almost every single basic course text book on the subject.

---

When one claims they are quoting a thing citation is standard.

Quote:

---

What the sources say is exactly what I've been explaining: a valid deduction alone does not mean the conclusion must be necessarily true.

---

This claim has not been made.

Quote:

---

Edit: that link was very interesting. Indeed, it takes up some of the fallacies I spotted in Pindar's argument, including:
"The real problem is that the argument makes an assumption that is not brought out explicitly. It assumes that it is possible for an omniscient rational individual to exist, where omniscience includes knowledge about one's own existence. So what the argument really seems to show is that (for God as defined [this text used the definition that God is defined as an omniscient and rational individual, i.e. not the definition of the Judeo-Christian God]). IF it is possible for a rational omniscient being to exist THEN necessarily a rational omniscient being exists."

---

My proof is not concerned with omniscience, rationality or any other aspect besides necessity: neither is the proof sectarian. This has been explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You claimed that your view is from every known expert in the field, however it seems your missing the point that was demonstrated in the link provided. You can of course state you find that postion not to be valid - but that has not been your claim in this thread.

---

No, my view agrees with the view in the linked document, as you can see. The linked position includes the ontological aspect of logic, which Pindar is forgetting. The link also discusses modal logic. Modal logic is an extension to formal boolean algebra, not a contradiction towards it. There's basically no such thing as a modal logic argument refuting a valid boolean algebra argument or valid classical logic argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That was not the question asked. Nor does it address Pinder's arguement, your claim is that his arguement is not valid - however his arguement uses a very basic form of logic and ontology, one that is easily followed, even if it does contain some fallacies in logic.

---

I'm claiming that both his argument is invalid, and that his premises are invalid. And that he needs to prove that both the argument is valid and the premises are true before he has proven his statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Which is why I posted the linked given this quote;

You can of course reject ontology and the logic premise behind it - but your base claim toward Pinder's is indeed a false conclusion, based upon my own readings on philosophy, logic, and religion. You should address his arguement not his base of knowledge.

---

Can you elaborate on that? What exactly is it you claim to be a false conclusion in my statements? And are you claiming that the truth value of the premises doesn't matter? Because if you do, then you've made the same fallacy Pindar has made in the last 3 posts, namely to think a logical argument is enough to prove a conclusion. A logical argument in itself only proves that if the premises are true the conclusion will be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Edit: the last few postings by both you and Pinder have been an esclation in the tit for tat accusations based upon base of knowledge. Which I find normally derails a thread very quickly. As I read the thread I understand both of your arguements concerning the subject - however Pinder has remained consistent with his approach - he is not using science to prove or disprove religion or more important God. He is simply staying away from that course - he is approaching the subject soley on the Philosphocial and Metaphysical aspect of the subject, in this course he is staying true to the base logic used for centuries in arguing a pro postion for a diety. This is valid technique given the nature of the material. I do see you attempting to interject science into the discussion and his refusal to steer toward your arguement, which has lead to your frustation in the discussion.

---

No, Pindar is claiming to be using logic to prove the existence of God. If he is to use logic to prove it, he must follow the rules of logic. Otherwise he hasn't used logic to prove the existence of God, but used something else. Whatever that is is up to him to quote the references for, but at the very least it's not true to state that it's logic he's using, since the rules of logic aren't followed in his argument, as I pointed out in my earliest replies to his posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Proofs for the existence of God are quite old and varied. A number of philosophers have done this. To cite a few simple examples: Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas and Leibniz all put forward arguments that my one proof plays off of. The reason I gave the proof I have over other options is because it is accessible to a person who may not have formal study in philosophy.

---

But all of their proofs have contained fallacies, and most of them have admitted it or have had the fallacies spotted by later philosophers. A correct proof of the existence of God has so far not been achieved by anyone except you, Pindar. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If one claims they are quoting from the literature of logic then they should: one, use quotation marks. Two, provide the citation. You have not done so. If you would like to do this we can revisit what you consider coherent/relevant.

---

You might as well have to quote which philosophers have proven God's existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Attendant to this second point is your claim lying is a standard vernacular for logic used by "all experts within the subject". I asked for three citations...where are they?

---

Read my post above and see the references. If I have forgotten any, tell me where it is and I'll be able to find a source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I do know the definition of proof. A proof is a valid argument. A valid argument is something where the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. I have done just this regarding the existence of God.

---

Yes, but you're claiming that you've proven the existence of God. You haven't. Let's hypothetically say your argument follows the rules of logic. In that case you have proven the existence of God assuming all your premises are true. That's not the same thing as having proven that God exists. Because it could very well be the case that the premises or other assumptions you've made aren't true. Until you know whether they're true or not, you don't know whether God's existence is true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You are confused.

---

Stop the personal attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

A proof turns on validity not truth.

---

The wiki link I gave above states clearly that you can either call it a proof that:
- a statement is true because the conclusion followed from the premises and the premises have been shown to be true by a chain leading back to ontologically acceptable axioms, or
- a statement is true under the condition that the premises are true (and no claim is made as to whether the statement is true or not if the premises aren't true)
I'm using both of the definitions (with the context explaining which I'm using at which time) since they're both valid, but in the second case, which you are using, the final statement you're supposed to make after a logical argument isn't: "my conclusion is true", but "my conclusion is true assuming all my assumptions are true". So you haven't under any circumstances proven the existence of God. On the contrary you've proven: "assuming my assumptions are true, a non-contingent being exists", where a non-contingent being is something defined as "anything that hasn't been caused by something else".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

So you know: the above is not an argument. An argument means one needs to have a conclusion. Such is absent above. You have mixed up statements and arguments. Statements can be true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid.

---

HAHAHAHAHA! Finally got you! All I know who have read something about formal logic would immediately recognize the above as the formal notation for a proof. The thing you quoted is indeed an argument, and it has indeed got a conclusion. A logical argument is an implication, which is denoted by =>, and the statement to the right of the "arrow" is the conclusion. Formal logic is a fool proof system to test the validity of an argument in first order logic or predicate logic, and can be extended by modal logic operators to allow ontological arguments (note that modal logic is an extension to formal logic, not a contradiction to it).
Here you have two introductions to the subject of formal logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The proof doesn't operate off of any invented rules from me. The proof is quite simple in its form and the terms are common for the topic being quite old i.e sourced to Aristotle.

---

Yet you claim to have proven "the existence of God", rather than having proven "the existence of God on the condition that your premises are true". The difference is huge. I have, as you saw above in my examples, proven that "1+1+1=5 given that 1+1=3 and 3+1=5", but that doesn't mean I've proven that 1+1+1=5. In fact, I could do no such thing as the latter since it isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Is the 'they' above referring to this response of mine with examples of your thought process:

---

Wow, you're using my own example of why your reasoning is fallacious as "examples of your thought process". IIRC you've just made a strawman fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Meaningless means incoherent. The above are not valid. The first asserts its own conclusion (begs the question).

---

To assert your own conclusion is a valid logical argument, if you're only aware of what a valid logical argument means. It means: "if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true". And indeed, the following argument:

God exists
=======
therefore God exists

indeed lives up to that requirement. If God exists, then God must necessarily exist. The argument is valid, the fallacy that is called 'begging the question' is to claim that the conclusion is true. The fallacy is to claim: "the conclusion is true", the correct statement is: "assuming the premise is true, the conclusion is true". But since in the real world (where no assumptions are allowed) the premise God exists can be either true or false until more information is given, we can't know if the conclusion is true or false, and by formal boolean algebra we obtain that the truth value of the conclusion is undefined (either false or true is possible). I.e. we have gained no further information by making the conclusion.

Here's wiki saying the same thing I just said: "Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

See? Exactly what I said - we have no reason to believe the conclusion, but the logical argument in itself is valid. The meaning of "valid logical argument" is simply that assuming the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. I think I'll put that in my signature seeing as I'd otherwise have to repeat it in every single post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The second has no logical entailment, but is a series of random statements. These are but two examples of a common pattern. I'm sure you feel logic is important and I would agree, but it seems clear you've never formally studied logic. Your statements are random and confused more often that not.

---

Again it's fun that you use the examples I used to illustrate your fallacies to claim that I'm making incorrect logical conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, the proof is quite simple and straight forward. It doesn't require any reworking. If you wish to challenge there are contingent beings, causality or something else that is fine. The proof concludes: there must be a necessary being. I proffered that such can only be God.

---

Your proof doesn't clearly list which assumptions it makes, yet makes several assumptions. Because a logical argument only states that the conclusion is true if the premises (i.e. assumptions) are true, it's necessary to know under which assumptions your conclusion statement is supposed to be true. You haven't proven that God must exist no matter the conditions. For that to be possible, you'd need a proof which doesn't make any assumptions at all, i.e. has no other premises besides trivial ones such as "either x is true, or x is false", after which you separately treat the case where x is true and the case where x is false.

This was just too funny so I had to quote it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have made no such claim that "God exists to be true".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

there must be a necessary being. I proffered that such can only be God.

---

So again can you tell me what is the conclusion you make from your "proof"? Is it "A necessary being that can only be God exists", or is it "assuming [insert a list of assumptions here], a necessary being that can only be God exists"?

I'll give you a hint on what an assumption is: "no contingent being has existed forever", is an assumption you need for your proof in step 1. Because assume that at least 1 contingent being existed forever. Then that contingent being could have been the cause of all other contingent beings. Thus no non-contingent being is required. The argument is completed by the fact that we don't know whether there is or isn't one or more contingent beings that have existed forever. That means that your "proof" has shown that "assuming no contingent being can have existed forever, and [insert list of other assumptions here], a necessary being that can only be God exists". As you can see, when the assumptions are explicitly stated - as they must be - the "proof" becomes much less impressive and convincing.

But you've picked a form of your argument that hides the above fallacy quite well. Because you define a contingent being to be something that had a cause, it follows from the definition that it can't have existed forever. The fallacy however doesn't go away because you redefine the words - the definitions of the words don't affect the validity of an argument if the phrasing of the argument is changed accordingly to the change of words so the meaning is intact. The fallacy instead lies in the fact that your definition of non-contingent and contingent beings aren't each others complement (i.e. they don't cover all forms of beings), thus there can exist other forms of beings, for instance a type of being that was never created and have existed forever, let's call it "constant being" to simplify further discussion so I don't have to repeat the entire definition each time I use the word. The constant beings must be proven as not possible to exist before your proof can work, because assume there is a constant being that has existed forever. Then that constant being could have been the cause of all contingent beings. Then, no non-contingent being is necessary. Since we don't know for sure that no constant being exists, a non-contingent being isn't necessary.

The lesson I hope will finally be learnt is that if we don't state the assumptions we made in order to arrive at a particular conclusion, then it's possible to prove almost any statement, even things we know for sure are false, with a perfectly valid logical argument.

I'll also repeat what I orginally stated: nobody has proven the existence or non-existence of God yet, and religion is a matter of belief, not a matter of knowledge. And what really matters isn't whether the existence of God can be proven or not, but the other things that religion provides, such as comfort and ethical guidance. One could also ask - is the man who knows that God exists a Christian? The phrase in the bible which is claimed to define Christianity: "believe in me, and you'll get eternal life" uses the word believe. It doesn't say: "prove my existence and know it, and you'll get eternal life".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

No, my view agrees with the view in the linked document, as you can see. The linked position includes the ontological aspect of logic, which Pindar is forgetting. The link also discusses modal logic. Modal logic is an extension to formal boolean algebra, not a contradiction towards it. There's basically no such thing as a modal logic argument refuting a valid boolean algebra argument or valid classical logic argument.

---

If my assumption about Pinder's use of the ontological model is correct, primarily because of his reference to such, are you arguing that for a person to use the model that they must always use the formal logic formula when discussing an issue versus referencing the model?

Quote:

---

I'm claiming that both his argument is invalid, and that his premises are invalid. And that he needs to prove that both the argument is valid and the premises are true before he has proven his statement.

---

Yes indeed you have made such a claim but your attempts at proving your claim you are seemly focused on the individual not the arguement.

Quote:

---

Can you elaborate on that? What exactly is it you claim to be a false conclusion in my statements? And are you claiming that the truth value of the premises doesn't matter? Because if you do, then you've made the same fallacy Pindar has made in the last 3 posts, namely to think a logical argument is enough to prove a conclusion. A logical argument in itself only proves that if the premises are true the conclusion will be true.

---

A simple elaboration using this quote of yours.

You ask a question, and then leap to an assumption not in evidence. This method demonstrates that you have alreadly established what you believe my stance to be, without the evidence to support such a conclusion being present.

Frankly what you just attempted is one of the very typical exambles that come to mind regarding false conclusions toward what Pinder has been using for his postion.

Do you really need someone to point out each and every one of these for you?

Quote:

---

No, Pindar is claiming to be using logic to prove the existence of God. If he is to use logic to prove it, he must follow the rules of logic. Otherwise he hasn't used logic to prove the existence of God, but used something else. Whatever that is is up to him to quote the references for, but at the very least it's not true to state that it's logic he's using, since the rules of logic aren't followed in his argument, as I pointed out in my earliest replies to his posts.

---

Again your stuck on the man not the arguement. The basic premise he is using has been shown by Pinder disprove the premise and you invalidate the arguement. You do not invalidate his arguement by demonstrating a knowledge of formal logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If my assumption about Pinder's use of the ontological model is correct, primarily because of his reference to such, are you arguing that for a person to use the model that they must always use the formal logic formula when discussing an issue versus referencing the model?

---

First of all he hasn't provided any references to me. Secondly, if he uses something he must tell both that he is using it, and how he is using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Yes indeed you have made such a claim but your attempts at proving your claim you are seemly focused on the individual not the arguement.

---

You're making a red herring fallacy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You ask a question, and then leap to an assumption not in evidence. This method demonstrates that you have alreadly established what you believe my stance to be, without the evidence to support such a conclusion being present.

---

I asked "is x true? If it is, then..." which shows pretty well that the following statement was uttered only on the condition that x was true. If it wasn't, I made no statement. This is practical because it means I don't have to wait for a yes or no to the first question, and it explains already before I get the yes or no what the consequences would be if it was a yes and the consequences of a no, respectively. It would be a fallacy if I were to state it as: "is x true? Yes it is, and therefore ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again your stuck on the man not the arguement.

---

Please stop the personal attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The basic premise he is using has been shown by Pinder disprove the premise and you invalidate the arguement. You do not invalidate his arguement by demonstrating a knowledge of formal logic.

---

To disprove a statement such as "the conclusion of my logical argument is necessarily true", it's enough to do ONE of the following:
- show that at least one premise is false
- show that for at least one premise it isn't known whether it's true or false
- show that the argument doesn't follow the rules of logic

To disprove a statement such as "the conclusion of my logical argument is necessarily true assuming the premises are true", it's enough to do ONE of the following:
- show that the argument doesn't follow the rules of logic

Wikipedia is a poor source to put forth as a formal reference. It can be informative, but on the other hand, articles can be created and modified by virtually anyone. Again, it can be informative, but it's far from definitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I asked "is x true? If it is, then..." which shows pretty well that the following statement was uttered only on the condition that x was true. If it wasn't, I made no statement. This is practical because it means I don't have to wait for a yes or no to the first question, and it explains already before I get the yes or no what the consequences would be if it was a yes and the consequences of a no, respectively. It would be a fallacy if I were to state it as: "is x true? Yes it is, and therefore ..."

---

Now I understood your intent, but what is an if, then statement if not an assumption. If there is no evidence of such an assumption being valid - why ask the question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Please stop the personal attacks.

---

Are you now calling pointing out a logical fallacy a personal attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourself

Your proof doesn't clearly list which assumptions it makes, yet makes several assumptions. Because a logical argument only states that the conclusion is true if the premises (i.e. assumptions) are true, it's necessary to know under which assumptions your conclusion statement is supposed to be true. You haven't proven that God must exist no matter the conditions. For that to be possible, you'd need a proof which doesn't make any assumptions at all, i.e. has no other premises besides trivial ones such as "either x is true, or x is false", after which you separately treat the case where x is true and the case where x is false.

---

This is the correct method in my opinion to invalidate a premise. However I must ask because of the quotes. Did you take this statement,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinder

I proffered that such can only be God.

---

To be Pinder's claim that God's existance must be true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

To disprove a statement such as "the conclusion of my logical argument is necessarily true", it's enough to do ONE of the following:
- show that at least one premise is false
- show that for at least one premise it isn't known whether it's true or false
- show that the argument doesn't follow the rules of logic

To disprove a statement such as "the conclusion of my logical argument is necessarily true assuming the premises are true", it's enough to do ONE of the following:
- show that the argument doesn't follow the rules of logic

---

Indeed this is correct - which leads me to ask once again?

Why the accusation of deception (lie) toward Pinder? Why the comments directed at the individual's knowledge versus demonstrating where the arguement is incorrect?

Again if pointing out a fallacy is not a personal insult - why are you taking the fact that I have pointed out the ad hominem fallacy you have made as a personal attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Wikipedia is a poor source to put forth as a formal reference. It can be informative, but on the other hand, articles can be created and modified by virtually anyone. Again, it can be informative, but it's far from definitive.

---

I agree. Wikipedia is however quite useful if you quickly want a source for a statement that you're sure should be available in pretty much any text book on a well known subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I'll also repeat what I orginally stated: nobody has proven the existence or non-existence of God yet

---

There are people who hold logical arguments for God/Deity as strong rational proof of his existence (the Kalam Cosmological Argument hasn't been mentioned in this thread). The Ontological argument still has quite a bit of support as well. The Teleological argument was buried for awhile by Hume (in it's watchmaker form) but consider the fact that Flew is a deist now (though he still holds the presumption of atheism and does not believe in the God of the religions) due mainly to forms of the argument (DNA is too complex, etc...).

Of course, many people are going to consider premises of arguments whose conclusions they do not like controversial, but to take things into context, one could easily say that nobody has "proved" the existence of the material world and that nobody has "proved" the existence of free will either, if one takes a sufficiently skeptical attitude. It's all about which premises to accept... People will believe what they want to believe, and then try to rationalize that belief.

Some people say that the existence of God has been proved, other will not...

Some people say that the existence of the material world has been proved, others will not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now I understood your intent, but what is an if, then statement if not an assumption. If there is no evidence of such an assumption being valid - why ask the question?

---

Simply because that I thought that maybe it wasn't entirely impossible that it would be true, and I thought it was in a sense fair for him to know what would entail from his claim that it would be true. It's a way of cornering him to state which assumptions he makes and which he doesn't make. When I know which his assumptions are, and his proof is presented in a complete and formal way, I can show whether it's correct or not according to the rules of logic. The rules of logic are deterministic in the sense that when two unrelated persons both apply them by the book the result will always be the same. Therefore, if two persons claim to have proven by logic statements that are each other's opposites, one of the two persons must be wrong. The problem is that I haven't made any claim yet, I'm waiting for him to present his complete proof with clearly stated assumptions, so that I can show whether it's correct or not according to the rules of logic. It should be noted that there are assumptions under which God's existence is a necessity, and assumptions under which God's existence is impossible. The whole business of proving God's existence is to find statements that with as few and as widely accepted assumptions as possible show that a being with at least some of God's properties can exist, and a few similar forms of arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again your stuck on the man not the arguement.

---

Please stop the personal attacks.

---

Are you now calling pointing out a logical fallacy a personal attack?

---

I fail to see how my begging for you to stop accusing me of carrying out personal attacks would be a logical fallacy. Or did you refer to another statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This is the correct method in my opinion to invalidate a premise. However I must ask because of the quotes. Did you take this statement,

To be Pinder's claim that God's existance must be true?

---

No, what I took as his claim that God's existence must be true was among other things this statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

there must be a necessary being. I proffered that such can only be God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Indeed this is correct

---

Thanks! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Why the accusation of deception (lie) toward Pinder?

---

I must apologize, it was because of my lacking English skills. In my native language the word lie refers to an untrue statement. I only found out the meaning of the word lie after I was told the meaning of the word by PM, and after that I edited it out since I didn't want to accuse him of being someone who said an untrue statement as an evil way of deceiving everyone, as the accusation of lying apparently means in English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Why the comments directed at the individual's knowledge versus demonstrating where the arguement is incorrect?

---

Because first he accused me of personal attacks when I refuted his arguments. Then he told me that I was wrong when I basically quoted things that should be present in all beginner's course text books on logic. With his comments he made me look like I wasn't knowledgeable on the subject, which is a common lawyer's technique of undermining the other side's arguments. I had to respond and provoke him into making a statement that was easy to prove was incorrect according to sources that were easy to quote, such as wiki. So when he finally said something that was easy to prove wrong, I was happy and pointed out that all I know who have read about logic would immediately say the opposite of what he was saying. Since he initially in order to make me look less than knowledgeable in the subject had to state that he knew a lot about logic when he tried to make me look bad at logic, he would finally make a claim that something I said was wrong in a case when what I just said was right out of the books so that his claim could easily be demonstrated to be incorrect. Now things are even and the discussion can hopefully continue focused on the arguments, and without personal attacks, whether skillfully hidden or visible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again if pointing out a fallacy is not a personal insult - why are you taking the fact that I have pointed out the ad hominem fallacy you have made as a personal attack?

---

I don't see where I made a personal attack, other than when I used the word lie, but I edited that out in I believe all places where I used it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

There are people who hold logical arguments for God/Deity as strong rational proof of his existence (the Kalam Cosmological Argument hasn't been mentioned in this thread). The Ontological argument still has quite a bit of support as well. The Teleological argument was buried for awhile by Hume (in it's watchmaker form) but consider the fact that Flew is a deist now (though he still holds the presumption of atheism and does not believe in the God of the religions) due mainly to forms of the argument (DNA is too complex, etc...).

Of course, many people are going to consider premises of arguments whose conclusions they do not like controversial, but to take things into context, one could easily say that nobody has "proved" the existence of the material world and that nobody has "proved" the existence of free will either, if one takes a sufficiently skeptical attitude. It's all about which premises to accept... People will believe what they want to believe, and then try to rationalize that belief.

Some people say that the existence of God has been proved, other will not...

Some people say that the existence of the material world has been proved, others will not...

---

Exactly. No proof presented so far is without assumptions. Thus all the proofs say "if my assumptions are true, God must necessarily exist". Interesting that you should point out how people often choose to refuse premises that yield conclusions that they don't like. That's true, but the nice thing about logic is that the inference rules of logic are widely accepted and therefore as long as the argument is valid you can say for sure that "IF my assumption are true THEN my conclusion is true", and nobody can argue that without having to at least implicitly claim that the inference rules of logic are incorrect. Notice that in my rewriting of Pindar's proof in a post above, I don't refute that given the assumptions I made there, a non-contingent being must exist. So if the rules of logic says that the argument is valid, then I immediately accept that the conclusion is true under the assumption that the given assumptions are true. Whether I agree with the premises or not is a matter of opinion, which I've so far not been focused on discussing in this thread. In fact, I'm more interested in making a list of assumption sets under which the existence of God is necessary, possible and impossible, respectively. The rest is a matter of belief and opinion IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Exactly. No proof presented so far is without assumptions. Thus all the proofs say "if my assumptions are true, God must necessarily exist". Interesting that you should point out how people often choose to refuse premises that yield conclusions that they don't like. That's true, but the nice thing about logic is that the inference rules of logic are widely accepted and therefore as long as the argument is valid you can say for sure that "IF my assumption are true THEN my conclusion is true", and nobody can argue that without having to at least implicitly claim that the inference rules of logic are incorrect. Notice that in my rewriting of Pindar's proof in a post above, I don't refute that given the assumptions I made there, a non-contingent being must exist. Whether I agree with the premises or not is a matter of opinion, but I've here not focused on discussing that. In fact, I'd rather make a list of assumption sets under which the existence of God is necessary, possible and impossible. The rest is a matter of belief and opinion.

---

I agree with all the above, but that was kind of a second point to my post.

My first point was:

"There are people who hold logical arguments for God/Deity as strong rational proof of his existence (the Kalam Cosmological Argument hasn't been mentioned in this thread). The Ontological argument still has quite a bit of support as well. The Teleological argument was buried for awhile by Hume (in it's watchmaker form) but consider the fact that Flew is a deist now (though he still holds the presumption of atheism and does not believe in the God of the religions) due mainly to forms of the argument (DNA is too complex, etc...)."

There are many people, and indeed, philosophers who hold that a strong rational proof of God has been achieved. It is not just Pindar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Simply because that I thought that maybe it wasn't entirely impossible that it would be true, and I thought it was in a sense fair for him to know what would entail from his claim that it would be true. It's a way of cornering him to state which assumptions he makes and which he doesn't make. When I know which his assumptions are, and his proof is presented in a complete and formal way, I can show whether it's correct or not according to the rules of logic. The rules of logic are deterministic in the sense that when two unrelated persons both apply them by the book the result will always be the same. Therefore, if two persons claim to have proven by logic statements that are each other's opposites, one of the two persons must be wrong. The problem is that I haven't made any claim yet, I'm waiting for him to present his complete proof with clearly stated assumptions, so that I can show whether it's correct or not according to the rules of logic. It should be noted that there are assumptions under which God's existence is a necessity, and assumptions under which God's existence is impossible. The whole business of proving God's existence is to find statements that with as few and as widely accepted assumptions as possible show that a being with at least some of God's properties can exist, and a few similar forms of arguments.

---

Then the lesson to be learned is that one must be very careful in using if, then statements. This I know from exeperience. If, then assumptions cause more problems then they solve in debate. For computer programing they work well.

Quote:

---

I fail to see how your accusing me of carrying out a personal attack would be a logical fallacy. Or did you refer to another statement?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

I don't see where I made a personal attack, other than when I used the word lie, but I edited that out in I believe all places where I used it. Edit: Hehe, I understand your joke

---

Glad to see - I was hoping that I would not have to explain it.


When one argues against the arguement one remains focused, when one focuses on the individual the discussion becomes disjointed. Which I must commend you on accepting your error with your post #414.

I also see several Appeals to Authority being used by yourself - but that is not a point of debate between me and you - that is for you and Pinder to sort out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then the lesson to be learned is that one must be very careful in using if, then statements. This I know from exeperience. If, then assumptions cause more problems then they solve in debate. For computer programing they work well.

---

Maybe you're correct. Now that I think about it I seem to recall some previous discussion a while ago when conditional statements were misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I also see several Appeals to Authority being used by yourself - but that is not a point of debate between me and you - that is for you and Pinder to sort out.

---

While you haven't pointed out the "Appeal to Authority" occurrences, I think I know what you're referring to, and I must point out that they actually aren't "Appeal to authority" fallacies. Appeal to authority fallacy is to say that "person x who is knowledgeable on the subject says y, therefore y must be true". In this case I'm stating that logic is a set of rules invented by Aristotle and others. If someone claims to be using logic, that person must follow the rules of logic, rules which have been invented by human beings, authorities.

By the way, it's quite difficult to have an entire philosophical discussion following all the rules of logic. Every quote to a reference would then be an "Appeal to Authority Fallacy", for example. What is therefore usually done in a philosophical discussion based on logic, is that regions of the text is written formally, and all regions that aren't written formally are treated as informal communication and not as arguments of any value to the discussion - arguments whose logical validity needn't be evaluated. If you think there's some point in an informal statement you ask the one who made that statement to rephrase his statement in formal terms. The problem is that such a formal statement must be written in terms of the original statement made, but since Pindar has made the original statement but didn't phrase it in formal terms, no formal refutation of it is possible. Only imprecise statements directed at his statement is possible, unless I take the responsibility or rephrasing his argument into more formal terms. And with imprecise statements communication text and texts containing arguments are easily mixed together, and it's easier for people who want to hide fallacies to hide them, and for people who by accident made fallacies to make them. If Pindar were to rephrase his argument in formal terms it would be easier and more constructive to discuss its validity. It's up to him to choose whether to do so or not. Anyway the point is that if a formal rephrasing is used it'll be easy to see what is actual claims, and what is simple communication statements such as "what did you mean there?", "can you rephrase that in formal terms", "I have no argument that you're statement is incorrect, but intuitively feel it is. I think I'll come up with an argument later, but let's take that when I come up with one, if I do, and let's concentrate on point 5". Only the actual claims need to be evaluated by logic. A claim would be something like "assumption 1 and assumption 2 are contradictions, therefore both can't be true"

Quote:

---

what was before the big bang?

---

Seeing as time begins with the big bang, nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

But all of their proofs have contained fallacies, and most of them have admitted it or having the fallacies spotted by later philosophers. A correct proof of the existence of God has so far not been achieved by anyone except you, Pindar. :bow:

---

Who has admitted their proof for God contained fallacies? None of the fellows I cited have done so. You are mistaken. Your comment suggest an unfamiliarity with the Tradition.

Quote:

---

You might as well have to quote which philosophers have proven God's existence.

---

I have given four examples in the last post.

Quote:

---

Read my post above and see the references. If I have forgotten any, tell me where it is and I'll be able to find a source.

---

I don't see any citations to experts noting lying is a common vernacular in logic. I asked for three which should be easy given your claim....still waiting.

Quote:

---

Yes, but you're claiming that you've proven the existence of God. You haven't. Let's hypothetically say your argument follows the rules of logic. In that case you have proven the existence of God assuming all your premises are true.

---

This is sufficient for my purpose. Do you wish to argue some of the premises are untrue?

Quote:

---

Stop the personal attacks.

---

If you are confused, noting such is not a personal attack, it is simply noting the confusion.

Quote:

---

- a statement is true because the conclusion followed from the premises and the premises have been shown to be true, or
- a statement is true if the premises are true
I'm using both of the definitions...

---

Then you are equivocating.

Quote:

---

(B)ut in the second case, which you are using, the final statement you're supposed to make after a logical argument isn't: "my conclusion is true", but "my conclusion is true assuming all my assumptions are true". So you haven't under any circumstances proven the existence of God. On the contrary you've proven: "assuming my assumptions are true, a non-contingent being exists", where a non-contingent being is something defined as "anything that hasn't been caused by something else".

---

Actually, non-contingent being isn't found in the proof. The terms are contingent and necessary being.

You need to recall the context that led to the proof. Sasaki Kojiro having been confronted with the absurdity of strong atheism then claimed all strong statements about God were illogical. I told him this was incorrect which led to him asking for an example. The proof is a simple demonstration of a valid argument for God in answer.

Now, given your thrust and confusion note the following. Here is a simple argument:

Vulcans love to boogie
Spock is a Vulcan
Therefore Spock loves to boogie.

Is the above valid? The answer is yes. Now, what if someone, say yourself, objects: "There is no such things as Vulcans or Spocks or even boogie?" Does this claim, even were we to agree, invalidate the proof? The answer is no. The argument remains valid. Validity means the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. This is the crux of the issue and the proof.

What then are we to make of the objection: "There is no such things as Vulcans or Spocks or even boogie?"? Assuming we agree with the sentiment, this means the proof is unsound. Soundness doesn't impact validity, it refers to whether the premises are true. You evidently have gotten hot and bothered about the soundness of the proof and have confused that opinion with validity itself. They are distinct.

Now, my focus has only been to demonstrate a valid argument. I've not been concerned with any larger truth claim. Even so, I think the proof's premises can withstand such a sound check as it were. If this is the sand box you wish to play in that is fine. Which premise(s) is false?

Quote:

---

HAHAHAHAHA! Finally got you! If you had actually read something about formal logic you would immediately recognize the above as the formal notation for a proof. The thing you quoted is indeed an argument, and it has indeed got a conclusion. A logical argument is an implication, which is denoted by =>, and the statement to the right of the "arrow" is the conclusion.

---

Alas, => is a 'then' statement not a conclusion. What you referenced are statements not arguments (proofs).

Quote:

---

Yet you claim to have proven "the existence of God", rather than having proven "the existence of God on the condition that your premises are true". The difference is huge. I have, as you saw above in my examples, proven that "1+1+1=5 given that 1+1=3 and 3+1=5", but that doesn't mean I've proven that 1+1+1=5. In fact, I could do no such thing as the latter since it isn't true.

---

You have not understood the point of the exercise. That point is explained above in the reference to Kojiro.

Quote:

---

Wow, you're using my own example of why your reasoning is fallacious as "examples of your thought process". IIRC you've just made a strawman fallacy.

---

No, I'm demonstrating a pattern of thought.

Quote:

---

To assert your own conclusion is a valid logical argument...

---

This is correct, but it is meaningless which was the basic point.

Quote:

---

Again it's fun that you use the examples I used to illustrate your fallacies to claim that I'm making incorrect logical conclusions.

---

I always have a hard time trying to follow your posts. The above is an example.

Quote:

---

Your proof doesn't clearly list which assumptions it makes, yet makes several assumptions.

---

Any standard statement with words makes assumptions. Your comment is uninteresting. If you wish to challenge contingent being or some other point in the proof you may do so.

Quote:

---

This was just too funny so I had to quote it:

---

?

Quote:

---

So again can you tell me what is the conclusion you make from your "proof"?

---

The conclusion is that necessary being exists. I then put forward that only God could fill that condition. As previously explained, it is a sufficiency argument.

Quote:

---

I'll give you a hint on what an assumption is: "no contingent being has existed forever", is an assumption you need for your proof in step 1. Because assume that at least 1 contingent being existed forever. Then that contingent being could have been the cause of all other contingent beings. Thus no non-contingent being is required. The argument is completed by the fact that we don't know whether there is or isn't one or more contingent beings that have existed forever. That means that your "proof" has shown that "assuming no contingent being can have existed forever, and [insert list of other assumptions here], a necessary being that can only be God exists". As you can see, when the assumptions are explicitly stated - as they must be - the "proof" becomes much less impressive and convincing.

But you've picked a form of your argument that hides the above fallacy quite well. Because you define a contingent being to be something that had a cause, it follows from the definition that it can't have existed forever.

---

You seem to have answered your charge: contingent being is by definition caused (has a source) and thereby temporally fixed.

Quote:

---

The fallacy instead lies in the fact that your definition of non-contingent and contingent beings aren't each others complement (i.e. they don't cover all forms of beings)...

---

Non-contingent isn't in the proof. The terms I use are contingent and necessary being. The two are inclusive. There is no third option. Your charge is flawed.

Quote:

---

The lesson I hope will finally be learnt is that if we don't state the assumptions we made in order to arrive at a particular conclusion, then it's possible to prove almost any statement, even things we know for sure are false, with a perfectly valid logical argument.

---

The assumptions in the proof are mundane. They include the standard logical ontic distinctions: contingent and necessary and the standard belief in causality. Quite simple.