-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Redleg, do you honestly believe every single word in a logical discussion is a logical argument? If I say "brb I'll visit the toilet" when I discuss with philosophers, should they start trying to look for fallacies in that phrasing (this was a demonstration of what the consequences would be of making the statement that "all statements in a logical discussion should be evaluated as logical arguments", if anyone were to make that statement)? I asked a question, a simple question. You aren't supposed to evaluate a question as if it was a logical argument! :wall: The purpose of the question was that I wanted to know what you answered. Let me ask it again: do you believe in God, or do you know in God, or both, or both or neither? Whether you want to answer or not is your choice.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Redleg, do you honestly believe every single word in a logical discussion is a logical argument? If I say "brb I'll visit the toilet" when I discuss with philosophers, should they start trying to look for fallacies in that phrasing (this was a demonstration of what the consequences would be of making the statement that "all statements in a logical discussion should be evaluated as logical arguments", if anyone were to make that statement)? I asked a question, a simple question. You aren't supposed to evaluate a question as if it was a logical argument! :wall: The purpose of the question was that I wanted to know what you answered. Let me ask it again: do you believe in God, or do you know in God, or both, or both or neither? Whether you want to answer or not is your choice.
Read what is actually stated not what you believe is to be stated.
One should be very careful of asking such questions, especially one where the sentence structure can have several meanings based upon the reader's interpation.
It seems to me that you have presented a basic arguement fallacy by taking this route with that particuler question.
Your response was to committ another assumption not evident in the statement. I find that rather interesting considering the failure of yours to catch several of the statements made by Pinder in his premise.
The actual question as asked in philosphy and in religion, is do you believe in God or do you Know God? The use of the word in protrays a meaning that is acidine on its face, and can be interpated in several ways by different readers.
Now attempt to read what is written versus the preception of what you believe is written.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Read what is actually stated not what you believe is to be stated.
One should be very careful of asking such questions, especially one where the sentence structure can have several meanings based upon the reader's interpation.
It seems to me that you have presented a basic arguement fallacy by taking this route with that particuler question.
I saw the words "you have presented a basic arguement fallacy". I interpreted that as you trying to say that in your opinion I had made a logical fallacy, in either asking the question at all or asking it with a phrasing that you didn't consider appropriate for some reason.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I saw the words "you have presented a basic arguement fallacy". I interpreted that as you trying to say that in your opinion I had made a logical fallacy, in either asking the question at all or asking it with a phrasing that you didn't consider appropriate for some reason.
That is the problem with internet discussion - interpatation of the written word because of one's own preconcieved opinion on the subject. This basic dilimenia has been presented several times by several posters on this subject. The sentence had no outside meaning other then what was written.
Know in God - does not carry the same meaning as Know God in the philosophical stance.
And Yes I know God because of my own experiences in life, ones that can not be held to any other standard then that of ancedotal evidence, which makes them irrelative to a discussion of his existance to a logic standard, since the evidence can not be replicated.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That has always been my understanding of debate and logic. Now pointing out fallacies has always been part of the process, but its my understanding that one cannot just claim its a fallacy, but one must demonstrate it as a fallacy and provide the logical counter to the premise that used the logical fallacy. Is this not correct?
There are two basic kinds of fallacies: formal and informal. Informal fallacies are the kind you see when someone makes an appeal to authority or begs the question. Formal fallacies speak to the basic logical structure of the argument. A simple example would be what known as affirming the consequent:
A then B
B
Therefore A
This is a fallacy because while A necessitates B, B alone does not require A. For example:
If its raining the rose bush is wet
the rose bush is wet
Therefore its raining.
The rose bush could be wet for any number of reasons aside from rain.
My interlocutor, as it were, would need to demonstrate I've committed a formal fallacy to make his case. This hasn't happened. Rather there has been endless mulberry bush dancing.
Quote:
I read most of his posts as an arguement over form, not of the actual substance.
There has been no substance. You are correct.
Quote:
I see it as a rather weak attempt to invalidate your proffered premise, (If I may be so bold in attempting to use the word in a sentence). It is my understanding that a strong rebuttal of your premise would provide counters to your postion, along with the form and substance arguement that demonstrates where the fallacies are in your presentation of the proffered premise.
Yes.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
No matter what your answer would be, there would have been a fallacy, but in different places depending on what you answered.
Fascinating, so regardless the inability to indicate the fallacy, or fallacies as it were, they are nonetheless there.
Quote:
Your first claim was to have concluded that a being having the following properties existed for sure: "existed forever backwards in time, still exists today, and caused the first contingent being and possibly other contingent beings as well". Now with your previous definitions, your argument was a fallacy. With your new definitions, it was a fallacy to claim the conclusion to be that a being with the above properties exist. Thus in both cases a fallacy.
There are no new definitions. I have repeatedly stated the meaning of both necessary and contingent are the standard definitions. This has never changed throughout the 'discussion'. This quote: "existed forever backwards in time, still exists today, and caused the first contingent being and possibly other contingent beings as well". Isn't anything I've said. I think you are quoting yourself which is lovely, but doesn't relate to my argument. Necessary being cannot cease to be by definition. Further as the proof indicates is the only possible ultimate source for any contingent reality.
Quote:
In the second case, looking at what the conclusion really says there's no fallacy. Your new argument only states that "something that must exist must exist", which is true.
The above seems to fly in the face of the earlier comment of yours: "No matter what your answer would be, there would have been a fallacy, but in different places depending on what you answered."
There is no new argument. All seven steps remain as they have been since I posted them way back on page four of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
The definition of necessary being does assert the object cannot be otherwise. A definition is not a proof. There is nothing about the definition that requires one accepts there are indeed necessary being(s). In the proof there is no assertion that necessary beings do in fact exist. It does conclude they exist however.
Quote:
A definition is nothing but a choice of letting a word denote a complex phrase... that we don't want to repeat each time we want to express it. As such, any word can be replaced by its definition without changing the meaning of the phrase. For example...Example1...Example2...
Your comment doesn't relate the my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
There are no unstated assumptions. The conclusion is not "a necessary must exist". It is: a necessary being does exist. The conclusion does rely on what precedes it. This is the point of a proof.
Quote:
Yes, you're correct, the conclusion didn't need any assumptions (except the assumption that the inference rules of logic are correct, but that assumption is normally left out) in it's new form. However, it wasn't clear until you explained what your definition of "necessary being" was. Now that you've provided the definition of it it's clear that, using the replacement of words by their definition, your conclusion only stated that "something that must exist must exist.
The meaning of necessary being has always been clear. I offered no change in the standard meaning that has always attended the word. I have repeatedly said I was using the standard meaning when asked.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
My good fellow, the references I gave you are to Leibniz's sufficiency principle, which as those familiar with the philosophical tradition will tell you, is the key to understanding his proof for God. If you were really interested, what you should have done is actually read a little of what's is going on in the piece. Since you didn't do that allow me to point out what is going on. First the two references again:
32. And that of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact real or existing, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason, why it should be so and not otherwise, although these reasons usually cannot be known by us. (Theod. 44, 196.)
36. But there must also be a sufficient reason for contingent truths or truths of fact, that is to say, for the sequence or connexion of the things which are dispersed throughout the universe of created beings, in which the analyzing into particular reasons might go on into endless detail, because of the immense variety of things in nature and the infinite division of bodies. There is an infinity of present and past forms and motions which go to make up the efficient cause of my present writing; and there is an infinity of minute tendencies and dispositions of my soul, which go to make its final cause.
To continue:
37. And as all this detail again involves other prior or more detailed contingent things, each of which still needs a similar analysis to yield its reason, we are no further forward: and the sufficient or final reason must be outside of the sequence or series of particular contingent things, however infinite this series may be.
38. Thus the final reason of things must be in a necessary substance, in which the variety of particular changes exists only eminently, as in its source; and this substance we call God. (Theod. 7.)
39. Now as this substance is a sufficient reason of all this variety of particulars, which are also connected together throughout; there is only one God, and this God is sufficient.
40. We may also hold that this supreme substance, which is unique, universal and necessary, nothing outside of it being independent of it,- this substance, which is a pure sequence of possible being, must be illimitable and must contain as much reality as is possible.
Hopefully the point is clear.
Quote:
Can you provide the text from the other sources you claim to be proofs of God?
While it seems I'm to act the pedagogue and have actually provided the references I see no need to do all your homework. Request denied.
Quote:
Let me also point out that St. Thomas, being a monk, of course must be suspected of bias and carefully evaluated.
Your comment shows an ignorance of St. Thomas.
Quote:
In my opinion you haven't provided enough support for your statement that anyone, except you that is, has made a valid logical proof of God.
My statement was: "Proofs for the existence of God are quite old and varied. A number of philosophers have done this." I then gave some examples. I also challenged you to show which of these fellows had admitted their proofs were fallacies. So you know, all the examples I gave are of a similar species of argument. There are other models as well. The point remains: proofs for God span the Philosophical Tradition. While there are always detractors there are also vast numbers who hold the various arguments as rationally demonstrative. So, your earlier statement nobody, but me has given a proof for God was wrong on its face. Sorry.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Yes, if an informal argument doesn't convince the other part, and the other part asks for a complete and formal counter example, it's common place to provide one. However I haven't been asked to do this when I provided my quick informal comment. .
Removed rest of paragraph for ease of reading.
Good summation of your point
However if I go back to Pinder's initial comment concerning his arguement I find this statement.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=120
Quote:
Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
To hide data that many will not want to read again.
Now that was the initial postion of Pinder. For my ease of understanding point me to the specific post that fits within your claims in the initial paragraph that I only partily quoted - because frankly I did not see it in my review of the thread.
Quote:
So my intention so far in the discussion hasn't primarily been to refute his argument, but to make him realize what his claims are, formalize his proof, and by providing the definitions of his words removing all risks of equivocation. I've succeeded partly in those goals. Now the next step is either to invalidate his argument if it's incorrect, and validate it formally if it's correct. The final step is to discuss how his conclusion relates to the bigger question "is there a God"? I don't think - and this is merely a matter of opinion - that the statement "something that must exist must exist" is a statement that convinces me of the existence of God much compared to how the texts in the Bible can convince me of the existence of God.
So is your initial premise one of form over substance? I ask solely for clarification.
Quote:
No, I can't invalidate the statement "something that must exist must exist", since it's a valid argument. However I could invalidate his previous statement "there exists a being that has existed forever and still exists, and caused the first contingent being". To clarify, that text isn't a quote of what he said, but a summary of what he claimed was true about his necessary being in his previous posts. If it's of any interest to the argument, I could provide exact quotes from his posts, but since he's chosen a new definition of the words now that's hardly necessary since he's withdrawn (if he ever held it) the claim that the old argument was true and replaced it with a new argument. Now he's made his claim formal and it turned out to be very different from what his initial claim SEEMED to be, judging from his phrasing of his initial claim. However I might have been incorrect in my understanding of what his initial claim was - it might be the case that his initial claim too was no more than: "something that must exist must exist".
Please refer to the exact post number since it will insure I understand exactly what you are stating. It seems in my review of the thread - I am not seeing what you are.
Quote:
The burden of proof lies on the person who makes a claim. Pindar needs to show that there doesn't exist any choice of truth value assignments that will make his argument invalid (that is exactly what a proof does - to say that an expression has truth value true is the same as saying that there can't exist any choice of truth values for the literals in it such that the expression can evaluate to false). While an invalidation of a proof requires you to show that there exists one counterexample, the validation of a proof requires you to show that there can't exist a counterexample. Valid proof and invalid proof are the negations of each other. The negation of "there exists an x" is "there can't exist an x".
Since he did not offer the arguement as a truth only a simple proof of God as used by earlier thinkers for the existance of God, I don't believe he necessarily has the burdern to prove his arguement as valid - since you are in essence challenging not only Pinder but the whole of the ontological arguement of God's existance (this is my understanding of the Premise that Pinder used), I believe the onus lies with you to prove the arguement is invalided. Nor did you ever demonstrate in this thread where the early ontological philosophers(SP) withdrew their premises because of a fallacy inherient in the logic.
Quote:
As a Socratic question for you - what do you believe Pindar's latest argument actually says? The answer is obtained in a very clear form by replacing words by their definition - do you agree that it's valid to replace a word by its definition? The result then obtained is "something that must exist must exist". Is that a proof of God's existence? Now in his last step Pindar doesn't prove, but proffers that "a necessary being" can only be God. Again using replacement of words with their definiton, we see that his last step is to state that "I proffer that something that must exist can only be God". Would you consider this a proof of God's existence? Note that his initial word definitions implied other properties as well - it nearly fooled me too - but the new choice of definitions makes it quite clear that this isn't a proof of the existence of God. Or do you think otherwise?
I followed the initial arguement that stated the simple proof of God, based upon the ontological position. Some of the discussion between you and Pinder is lost in the arguement. So to comment futher I once again will need the specific post numbers that demonstrate the change in definition - since I once again do not necessarily see a change.
Quote:
Now if I'm guessing correctly, the moment Pindar realizes that his new choice of definitions mean that his conclusion is "something that must exist must exist", and not what he initially intended to conclude from his argument, he will change his definitions, or reprase his argument to argue that there exists "something that wasn't created by something else, whose existence backwards in time is unbounded, and that still exists today, and that can have created the first contingent being". That was what he initially made the impression that he wanted to prove, while his argument, after he revealed his definitions, turns out to state nothing but "something that must exist must exist". When someone's conclusion suddenly changes meaning or the argument for no apparent reason becomes invalided as soon as someone provides his definitions of his words, it smells equivocation fallacy long way. Indeed he seems to initially have used the equivocation of claiming that necessary being meant something else in its context in the conclusion, than it meant in his premises.
I think Pinder alreadly addressed this speculation.
Quote:
I can reveal already now that it's perfectly possible to validly prove something along the lines of "assuming cause and effect is correct and that not all entities have existed forever, it's a necessity that at least one entity's existence is unbounded backwards in time and caused the first entity that wasn't unbounded backwards in time, and it's a possibility that that entity still exists today." That's one of the closest things to a proof of God that have been achieved. But it isn't a proof of God, only a proof that something, that has a subset of the properties that God has, necessarily exists. Whether that thing is God or not is a matter of belief.
Then your back to the simple proof of God as shown in the initial post 120. The ontological arguement for the existance of God is valid.
Warning: A conclusion and a judgement contained below
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'd certainly be interested in seeing them....
Me too...
Now I didn't read the below response to your post initially, but I have now. It's fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I'm afraid I must disappoint you then, because Pindar's new definition of the concept necessary being is "something that must exist". Because his conclusion is "a necessary being must exist", with the new definition of the word his conclusion says (when inserting the definition in place of the word) "something that must exist must exist". That is a perfectly valid argument, but a pointless one. Who doesn't already know that something that has a certain property for sure must have that certain property for sure?
The fallacies were found in his arguments when his definition of necessary being was "something that can cause other things, that can't be caused by something else, and that has existed forever and still exists today". Since his conclusion is phrased as "a necessary being exists", with the previous word definition, his conclusion meant "there exists something that can cause other things, that can't be caused by something else, and that has existed forever and still exists today". That conclusion didn't follow from his assumption.
In the course of this experience there has been a vast array of charges the proof is invalid, and fallacies abound. Then the stance was there are fallacies, but they haven't been indicated 'yet' due to hidden definitions/assumptions, but the fallacies are nonetheless there. This latest version of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds has the proof now valid, but only because the definitions changed. Amazing stuff!
There has been no change in definitions. This: "something that can cause other things, that can't be caused by something else, and that has existed forever and still exists today" is not a quote from me. I have repeated ad nauseum the definitions for both contingent and necessary being are the standard definitions. The same applies to the assumptions diversion. There is nothing hidden in the proof. The first point is an assertion which can constitute an assumption. That's it.
In between this flurry of charges there was the additional error of confusing soundness with validity and that my proof was somehow novel when it is quite mundane. I can only conclude that my earlier assessment was correct: this good fellow didn't/doesn't understand and what followed was a rush to judgment.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Good summation of your point
However if I go back to Pindar's initial comment concerning his arguement I find this statement....
Then your back to the simple proof of God as shown in the initial post 120. The ontological arguement for the existance of God is valid.
Damn Redleg!, That's quite a compilation and a commendable wade through an ever changing sea of charges.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Fascinating, so regardless the inability to indicate the fallacy, or fallacies as it were, they are nonetheless there.
I pointed out several fallacies. But they're no longer relevant since you've withdrawn that argument and replaced it with a new one. Your change of word definitions have changed the meaning of the conclusion. Now your conclusion only says the truism "something that must exist must exist". Previously it claimed the existence of a being that wasn't created, had the ability to create, and still exists today, and that such a being could only be God. Your new claim is that something that must exist must exist, and that thing can only be God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
There is no new argument. All seven steps remain as they have been since I posted them way back on page four of the thread.
With a change of definition of one of the words used in the conclusion, the argument changes meaning if the phrasing remains intact. Your argument uses the same words and is in a linguistic sense unchanged. But what you're claiming is now something different since the word you use in the conclusion now has a different meaning. You haven't supported that "something that must exist" can't be an atom, a human being, or something else. In fact, your conclusion is merely "something that must exist must exist", which is a truism.
Now that we all agree on what definitions you're using, we can all read your argument and see that your only claim is the truism "something that must exist must exist". This is a valid argument, but in fact your 7 points are redundant. That truism can be proven in a single proof step like this:
define necessary being as something that must exist.
Argument:
It follows directly from the definition that a necessary being must exist.
====
I've achieved a lot in this debate. You've been forced to fix your word definitions to avoid equivocation in the final proof step, I've forced you to make clear beyond doubt what your claim is, and I've taught you why assumptions matter. You have withdrawn your previous fallacious claim and now only claim something that is a truism. A truism which doesn't in any way whatsoever have anything to do with proving the existence of God. You originally had a falalcious claim related to the existence of God, now you have a valid logical argument but that isn't very related to the existence of God.
The discussion of the logical argument can thereby end, and now the informal discussion, based on opinion and not logic, can begin. A discussion of what place we think your result has in the subject of proving the existence of God.
In my opinion, stating the truism "something that must exist must exist" doesn't really convince me of the existence of a God. That's all I need to say in this discussion and evaluation of the significance of your argument.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
In reply to Redleg's and Pindar's other posts:
Here's my full position:
Pindar initially was vague about his definition of necessary being. Since the word necessary being appeared in his conclusion, depending on his definition of the word, the conclusion would have different meanings.
Quotes like this demonstrates that his definitions were initially vague, and contrary to what his new definitions are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Actually the stance is that contingent beings are caused and thus have a beginning. The same doesn't apply to necessary being. If you have an example of an uncaused contingent being present it.
Of course nobody can present an example of an uncaused contingent being if a contingent being is defined as "something that must be caused"! Note his previous definition which says that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Actually the stance is that contingent beings are caused and thus have a beginning. The same doesn't apply to necessary being.
where he defines contingent being as something that is caused, and a necessary being as something that isn't caused.
However his latest definition says that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
contingent being is: a being that may or may not exist: something whose existence is separate from its essence. There is nothing within or about it that requires is existence.
A necessary being is: something that cannot not be [I demonstrated that this equivalent to: something that must be] [...]
These quotes demonstrates that his definitions have indeed changed.
Now since his conclusion uses the word "necessary being", this drastic change of word definitions drastically changes the meaning of the conclusion. His initial conclusion claimed that:
"something that wasn't caused must exist"
His new conclusion claims that:
"something that must exist must exist".
This is a drastic change in what his argument actually is trying to prove, don't you agree?
Now the fallacies I pointed out were fallacies found in his previous argument, which was invalid. His new argument is valid, but meaningless. For the rest of the discussion, I'll continue what I've been doing so far:
- If he again claims that the first argument is valid, I'll point out the logical fallacies in it
- If he sticks to only claiming the new argument, I'd like to make clear that it only says "something that must exist must exist", and that it is a truism that doesn't require 7 proof steps, but just a single proof step, and that the remaining cause-and-effect related comments in his argument aren't related to the proof and are just added to cause confusion. And that the argument can be stated as a simple:
Definitions:
- a necessary being is something that must exist
Argument:
- It follows from the definition that a necessary being must exist
Informal comments/Interpretation:
- The proof shows the truism that something that must exist must exist
I would also like to discuss informally, as a matter of opinion, how his new pretty pointless truism of an argument relates to the existence of God if at all it does. In my opinion, I don't think the truism "something that must exist must exist" supports the existence of a God. I'd also like to discuss Pindar's final step, where he says "a necessary being must exist. I proffered that such can only be God". Since the definition of necessary being is now "something that must exist", pretty much everything that exists, including human beings, cars, atoms, energy etc. can apply to the word "necessary being". As such, his "proffer that such can only be God" isn't justified.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Well, of course, I have read very little of what has been posted here but I am sure everyone is wrong except me.~;p
:knight: There is some universal power responsible for creating everything that is. There are universal truths. Every religion has some point or other right but for the most part are just wrong when they say that such and such is unforgivable. Sin is the invention of some cleric and the only way to Sin is to think you have. Jesus told the same thing to Peter in some what different words. There is no devil per se but there is negativity and dark thought. Call it Shadow if you will…just something unclear, or harmful to others. How does one avoid it? By telling it to go away! How do you live your life? Be all you can be and try to harm no one while doing it. There is more but that should be enough for now.:coffeenews:
How do I know it?~:doh: Oh so here we get into trouble. I reached a state of knowing. And how, the really hard part, I guess I got a direct download form the universe. In the end if you tell people these things some will hate you and want to burn you or nail you to a tree or something.:hide:
So, I know I am more right than wrong and in the end it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks.
Am I crazy? Well maybe, but I don't think so. In the end it really doesn't matter anyway.:dizzy2:
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Since he did not offer the arguement as a truth only a simple proof of God as used by earlier thinkers for the existance of God, I don't believe he necessarily has the burdern to prove his arguement as valid
If he claims the argument to be correct and valid, he has the burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
since you are in essence challenging not only Pinder but the whole of the ontological arguement of God's existance
The ontological argument of God's existence isn't a logical argument, it's an argument in the informal sense the word argument is used outside of logic. The ontological argument is (wiki): "An ontological argument for the existence of God is an argument that God's existence can be proved a priori, that is, by intuition and reason alone".
Here is the ontolgical argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anselm
"Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Then Anselm asks: does God exist?
"Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not?"
To answer this, first he tries to show that God exists 'in the understanding':
"But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying – something than which nothing greater can be imagined – understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Anselm goes on to justify his assumption, using the analogy of a painter:
"For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
"Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding."
Now Anselm introduces another assumption:
"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."
"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."
Anselm has thus found a contradiction, and from that contradiction, he draws his conclusion:
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."
Here's how formal logic has rewritten Anselm's initially messy argument into a more clear form where fallacies are easier to spot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
1. God is, by definition, a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind
3. God must exist in reality, if God did not then God would not be that which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined)
This on the surface seems to be a good argument, but consider these questions:
- can someone necessarily imagine everything that exists? No. Therefore, there can exist things greater than the greatest that can be imagined.
- can someone necessarily not imagine things greater than the greatest things that exist? Yes, you can invent your own completely unrealistic paradise in the mind.
- his definition is vague. Does he mean something greater than anything that any human can imagine? Or does he mean something greater than anything that the person he speaks to can imagine? In the latter case, he's basically saying "the greatest thing YOU can imagine in your mind does exist in reality". In the former case it's unclear what he means.
However some claim that this argument doesn't completely follow Anselm's argument. Instead the following formal rephrasing of Anselm's argument has been suggested:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).
He first says that nothing greater than God can be imagined. Then he says that something that both exists and is imagined in greater than something that is only imagined. Then God must exist by definition since if he doesn't exist he isn't the greatest thing that can be imagined. The argument contains subtle equivocacies because some words, such as know and imagine, aren't clearly defined but use the imprecise standard definitions these words have in natural language. The word "great" is also used in a dubious sense. In fact words containing a personal valuing of something are normally considered illegal in formal logic. Is the statement "ice cream is good" true or false? That isn't decided until you tie the statement to a person, like this: "does Pindar think ice cream is good?" That is either true or false (but I don't know which it is unless I get more information ~:) ). Also - why would something that exists be greater than something that we only imagine? Many people state that the things we dream of are the greatest things just because they don't exist in reality.
Now if we really look at Anselm's second argument, it becomes even more clear what folly his work is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Anselm in his Proslogon 3 made another a priori argument for God this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent. Therefore God must be necessary, to sum it up:
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
It is greater to be necessary than not.
God must be necessary.
God exists
To show how cracy his assumptions are, we can continue from his assumptions and his conclusion like this:
- It's greater that there exists 1000 naked chicks with very large boobs who want to have sex with me, than if that doesn't exist
- God must therefore be 1000 naked chicks with very large boobs who want to have sex with me
Anselm's ontological argument basically says that the greatest thing you can imagine exists in reality. Whether that's Leprechauns, a God, hundred God, or 1000 naked chicks, is up to you to decide. David Hume demonstrated several fallacies in his argument,
wiki says:
"Obviously Anselm thought this argument was valid and persuasive, and it still has occasional defenders, but many, perhaps most, contemporary philosophers believe that the ontological argument, at least as Anselm articulated it, does not stand up to strict logical scrutiny.[1] Others, like Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, Kurt Gödel and Alvin Plantinga have reformulated the argument in an attempt to revive it.
However Plantiga, who has made one such attempt of revival is sceptic of using it to prove the existence of God:
wiki says: "Interestingly, Plantinga himself does not think the modal ontological argument is always a good proof of the existence of God". Plantiga, just like me, states that none of the arguments shown so far by anyone can prove either the existence or the non-existence of God.
===
BTW Pindar isn't using the ontological argument as far as I can see. He claims to be using Aristotle's sketch of an argument. I'll be back with info about that.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Now Gödel's proof:
wiki says: "Although Gödel was religious, he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God's existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out"
Wiki also says:
"There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including the following:
It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property; for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary, not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below) by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong: they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however the other axioms are replaced with:
Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are contingent rather than necessary.
Examples of contraarguments towards Gödel's argument:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ompatible.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Page
Version #1
1. If God exists, then he[2] is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
Version 2
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
...which shows Gödel's proof to be either incorrect or have assumptions and/or definitions that makes the argument fail, or makes it so that the argument doesn't prove the existence of God but something completely different. Actually using the word "proof" to refer to Gödel's rewriting of Leibniz informal messy argumentation into a more formal phrasing with the assumptions clearly stated, is probably not something that Gödel would agree with. He never published it, and: "he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out"
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Finally we have the pantheistic argument. The pantheistic argument is the only proof of God I've seen that is actually waterproof. It states the following:
Definitions:
Define God as everything that exists
Assumptions:
The rules of logic are correct (usually not necessary to state explicitly since it's always automatically assumed when we make a logical argument)
Argument:
By definition, God must exist.
Interpretation:
The interpretation is the most important part of the panteistic argument. Since God is "everything that exists", God is all humans, all plants, all earth, all energy, all other matter, etc. etc. God is also all natural powers, all chains of cause and effect, etc. etc. The pantheistic argument is thus not a proof of the Judeo-Christian God, but simply a matter of putting a label on everything. Alternative suggested labels for everything are words such as "nature" or "the universe". The pantheistic argument with its definition of God basically doesn't embrace or refute any particular religion, nor does it state anything about the properties of the things that exist, or tries to show the existence or non-existence of something we don't already know exists. If someone is to consider the pantheistic argument a proof of God's existence, then it's necessary that that person uses the defininion that God is "everything that exists".
It's when people start assigning properties to God that the pantheistic argument fails. The pantheistic argument only works if God is defined as that which exists. If more properties are assigned to God, then a new argument is needed. If someone wishes to assign properties to "everything that exists" those properties must be demonstrated separately, or only be a matter of belief, as religion is.
One common way of trying to cheat the pantheistic argument is the following:
Define God as all that exists that is good
It follows from the definition that God exists
The fallacy here is to forget to explicitly state the assumption that "existing and being good are compatible properties". If the fallacy was allowed we would be able to make arguments such as:
Define Leprechauns as all that exists, lives under the earth, can perform magic, and have gold treasures
It follows from the definition that Leprechauns exist
The obvious interpretation of that argument, namely that there exists something that lives under the earth, can perform magic, and has gold treasures and possibly has other properties as well, is a fallacy. However the argument in itself looks correct at a quick glance. Formally, we could say that the fallacy is that of leaving out assumptions. In particular, the assumption that the properties of the leprechauns are compatible.
The pantheistic argument is only a argument for the existence of the God used in Naturalistic pantheism. People can however informally believe that it supports other forms of religious belief as well, although there are no guarantees for the existence of a God that has any more properties than that he exists.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Pindar seemed to initially in the discussion use something somewhat remniscent of the cosmological argument.
From wiki:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.
Wiki comments: "The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the "first cause" is taken to mean the same thing as "God." Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation."
And continues with: "In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
As you can see, this argument makes the assumption that the universe was at all created. That isn't a premise that all people would agree to. Indeed, matter and energy wasn't created and can neither be created nor destroyed, according to many people.
The argument is however valid. The result of it is: "assuming the universe hasn't existed forever, and something needs to be caused by something else than itself in order to start exist, the universe was created by something". That the universe was created by something given that certain assumptions are true, isn't a strong argument for the existence of God. The thing that caused the universe could be Big Bang, God, Leprechauns, or many Gods. Similarily if the assumptions are believed to be false, matter and energy can have existed forever and only constellations of matter and energy are ever created. The proof therfore doesn't show that God must necessarily exist, but that under certain assumptions the universe must have been created by something unspecified. If this is to be seen as a proof of God, a lot of holes must be filled by belief to create a bridge between the result of the argument, and the claim that God exists. Furthermore, the proof doesn't rule out the possibility that there are more Gods than just one. It's therefore NOT a proof of God's existence using the most common definition of the word God. It's a proof of a much weaker claim, which neither makes God's existence necessary, nor does it rule it out.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I pointed out several fallacies. But they're no longer relevant since you've withdrawn that argument and replaced it with a new one.
There is no new argument any more than there was some new definition.
Quote:
Your change of word definitions have changed the meaning of the conclusion.
There is no change in definitions.
Quote:
You haven't supported that "something that must exist" can't be an atom, a human being, or something else.
This statement demonstrates you don't understand.
Quote:
Argument:
It follows directly from the definition that a necessary being must exist.
This isn't the argument.
Quote:
I've achieved a lot in this debate.
Your comments have been a singular display of misunderstanding, false charges and more misunderstanding. Nothing has changed by way of the argument, nothing. Your posts have contributed nothing save verbiage.
Quote:
You've been forced to fix your word definitions to avoid equivocation in the final proof step, I've forced you to make clear beyond doubt what your claim is, and I've taught you why assumptions matter. You have withdrawn your previous fallacious claim and now only claim something that is a truism. A truism which doesn't in any way whatsoever have anything to do with proving the existence of God. You originally had a falalcious claim related to the existence of God, now you have a valid logical argument but that isn't very related to the existence of God.
The above is laughable. We've gone from charges the argument is fallacy, fallacy fallacy to "now you have a valid logical argument..."
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
In reply to Redleg's and Pindar's other posts:
Here's my full position:
Pindar initially was vague about his definition of necessary being. Since the word necessary being appeared in his conclusion, depending on his definition of the word, the conclusion would have different meanings.
Quotes like this demonstrates that his definitions were initially vague, and contrary to what his new definitions are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Actually the stance is that contingent beings are caused and thus have a beginning. The same doesn't apply to necessary being. If you have an example of an uncaused contingent being present it.
Quote:
Of course nobody can present an example of an uncaused contingent being if a contingent being is defined as "something that must be caused"! Note his previous definition which says that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Actually the stance is that contingent beings are caused and thus have a beginning. The same doesn't apply to necessary being.
Quote:
where he defines contingent being as something that is caused, and a necessary being as something that isn't caused.
However his latest definition says that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
contingent being is: a being that may or may not exist: something whose existence is separate from its essence. There is nothing within or about it that requires is existence.
A necessary being is: something that cannot not be..
Quote:
These quotes demonstrates that his definitions have indeed changed.
This is dumb. Contingent beings are caused that is part and parcel of what 'may or may not exist' entails and why existence is separate from essence. The same applies to necessary being: as it isn't caused and cannot not be. Amazing simply bloody amazing!
LegioXXX in simple terms: you do not know what your talking about. Dilettantism is never a good thing.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Alas, after 469 posts of generally excellent quality, I fear we are getting tetchy.
To quote our glorious overlord,
The topic is tired and needs a rest.
I will re-open the thread in a few days should anyone PM me to ask for that to happen.
:closed:
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
I have received a number of requests that this thread be re-opened.
I’m happy to do so.
Let’s return to the discussion and address the points being made rather than the person behind them. If things get too frustrating, relax and go and have a cup of tea. One does not have to post in the thread – one does not persuade merely by having the last word.
Enjoy.
:bow:
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix you did not address what was written by me. To recap the questions and the statements does not need to be done - just a simple statement by me.
For all this discussion you still have not invalidated Pinder's initial premise that was posted in post 120. You have made claims of changing definitions but have not included the specific post number where you claim the definition change has taken place, which I asked for in my previous post#459, this is telling to me concerning your arguement.
To validate one's arguement one should be able to reference where exactly the contradiction happened and when it happened. You invalidate another's arguement one must be able to demonstrate counter's to that arguement. I have stated that I believe Pinder is primarily using the the ontological arguement, which only he can deny or confirm. You can believe he is using another form, that is okay, but when one attempts to lecture on the different forms of proof of God's existance one is not invalidating the arguement, one is actually confirming that the arguement for the existance of God has multiple forms and has been done by other's. Basically what you have done is invalidate one of your earlier claims by showing the counters to your postion of (and I paraphrase since I am to lazy to actually dig up the post number) that only Pinder has proven the existance of god.
Well I lied I am not to lazy to dig up the actual posts.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinder
I have given a proof for God, but offered nothing by way of sect specific truth claims
Which you initially responded with
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
A proof of God? Wow, then you must be a unique theological genius, because nobody has succeeded in it before without redefining the meaning of God so that he becomes something very different from what he initially was. Can you please repeat this proof of yours?
And then with this.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=332
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinder
The above is a simple valid argument.
No
It is interesting that while Pinder has stuck with the premise that he posted in post 120, that the individual who has changed their position on the arguement is yourself - with first claiming that it was not a valid arguement as you did in post 332, to one that states that it is a valid in post 446
So when I read the last 3 posts of your attempt at a lecture on the different arguements for God's existance I see the counter arguements to your claim here.
Is your attempt at lecturing on the different forms of arguement an attempt to appeal to authority because you are finding your initial premise to be weak because its an arguement of form over substance? As clearly stated in post 446 by yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So my intention so far in the discussion hasn't primarily been to refute his argument, but to make him realize what his claims are, formalize his proof, and by providing the definitions of his words removing all risks of equivocation.
Then again you failed to address a question that was hidden in the spoil box. When one focus on style over substance is not one committing a fallacy in itself?
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
@Redleg: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think my quotes demonstrate quite well that there was a change of word definitions. My post #463 explains my position.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Basically what you have done is invalidate one of your earlier claims by showing the counters to your postion of (and I paraphrase since I am to lazy to actually dig up the post number) that only Pinder has proven the existance of god.
To attempt to prove something is not the same as proving it. To prove something you must have made a successful proof. There is no contradiction since what I've been showing is that all proof attempts have failed, and if Pindar's proof wouldn't have failed, it would be unique in that sense.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
@Redleg: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think my quotes demonstrate quite well that there was a change of word definitions. My post #463 explains my position.
Negative - you claim to have proved something - you have not demonstrated it very well. When you use your own information it does not demonstrate the proof. Using the direct quotes and the post number where the quote came from would demonstrate the facts to insure that your interpation of the facts are correct. Several times in our discussion alone you have demonstrated the failure to probably read what was written because of your interpation and your assumption of what the statement means. How do I know that you have not done this with Pinder's statements if I do not see the direct quotes referenced with the post number it came from?
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
To attempt to prove something is not the same as proving it. To prove something you must have made a successful proof. There is no contradiction since what I've been showing is that all proof attempts have failed, and if Pindar's proof wouldn't have failed, it would be unique in that sense.
Arguements of form over substance does not prove your statement of all attempts have failed.
And I see that your still avoiding answering the question of isn't arguements of form over substance a logical fallacy in itself.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
@Redleg: nobody before has every required me to show a post number in an Internet debate where I have provided the correct quotation of someone's post. This is something new. Frankly I have better things to do that go through the old posts, but you claim you aren't, so since my quotes are correct you'll be able to find the post numbers when you look for them.
===
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Arguments of form over substance
Logic is a set of rules. An argument must follow those rules to be logically correct. The rules are nothing else than forms. But these forms are strongly tied to substance.
Here's something for you to think about:
- An argument without fallacies is true for certain
- An argument containing fallacies can be either correct or incorrect, i.e. it isn't necessarily correct. Remember that a proof is about showing that the argument is necessarily correct, so an argument that can be either correct or incorrect isn't acceptable. So if someone points out a fallacy, the burden of proof clearly lies on the one who attempts the proof.
- If an argument is valid AND contains fallacies, the fallacies must be of a type such that the argument doesn't depend on them, i.e. so that the fallacies can be removed from the argument so that an argument that is both valid and lacks fallacies is obtained. If a person wants to prove something by an argument, he should be able to remove any fallacies pointed out in his argument on request by his opponent, and present a revised argument where the fallacies have been removed. If his fallacies are inseparable from his argument, then his argument can never be any more than possibly correct, which isn't acceptable. A proof requires the argument to be necessarily correct.
===
Let me illustrate with an example that you're requiring something that isn't fair in any sense:
Person A makes the following invalid argument:
Define Leprechauns as the greatest thing that can be imagined
Leprechauns either exists or doesn't exist
Leprechauns are great, but they're even greater if they exist than if they don't doesn't
Therefore Leprechauns exists
Now person B points out:
In the first row you define a word that in the definition contains a value, which is an invalid form that usually causes errors that crucially disrupt the argument. As long as you make such a mistake the rest is an unreadable mess. Fix this and we will then discuss if what remains afterwards is acceptable.
Then Redleg says:
Person B, you're making a fallacy and arguing form over substance! You must show how person A's fallacy disrupts the argument, otherwise you're wrong! Person A has presented a valid argument but you argue form not substance!
The books say:
Redleg and person A are wrong! An argument containing fallacies may or may not be correct, but in order to have a proof you must have an argument that is necessarily correct. From the moment the fallacy is pointed out, until person A revises his argument to remove the fallacy, the argument is considered possibly correct, not necessarily correct, i.e. it's not a proof. If person A really has a valid argument, he should be able to remove the fallacies and present a revised argument. However if the fallacies are inseparable from the argument, then the argument isn't a valid proof, since it can never be necessarily correct.
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Okay since most of your previous post is just arguementive and an attempt that smacks of aggorance I shall return the favor. It seems your no longer interested in honest discussion but wanting to one-upsmanship, I asked a question and asked for clarafication on issues but instead you chose to go a different route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
@Redleg: nobody before has every required me to show a post number in an Internet debate where I have provided the correct quotation of someone's post. This is something new. Frankly I have better things to do that go through the old posts, but you claim you aren't, so since my quotes are correct you'll be able the post number when you look for them.
In other words you can not. Its really rather a simple thing. I explained to you that I reviewed the whole thread and did not see any re-defining of words. If you are unwilling to demonstrate the actual words then I can only assume that the quotations that you used are paraphrased and based upon your interpations. You have alreadly demonstrated that you are prone to making this mistake and misunderstanding what was actually stated. So the assumption is sound.
Quote:
Logic is a set of rules. An argument must follow those rules to be logically correct. The rules are nothing else than forms. But these forms are strongly tied to substance.
Here's something for you to think about:
- An argument without fallacies is true for certain
- An argument containing fallacies can be either true or false, i.e. it isn't necessarily true. Remember that a proof is about showing that the argument is necessarily true, so an argument that can be either true or false isn't acceptable. So if someone points out a fallacy, the burden of proof clearly lies on the one who attempts the proof.
- If an argument is valid AND contains fallacies, the fallacies must be of a type such that the argument doesn't depend on them, i.e. so that the fallacies can be removed from the argument so that an argument that is both valid and lacks fallacies is obtained. If a person wants to prove something by an argument, he should be able to remove any fallacies pointed out in his argument on request by his opponent, and present a revised argument where the fallacies have been removed. If his fallacies are inseparable from his argument, then his argument can never be any more than possibly true, which isn't acceptable. A proof requires the argument to be necessarily true.
Is this is an attempt at an appeal to authority, or an attempt to back out of answering the questions posed and to respond to the actual arguement? If you can not support your arguement with facts, I must assume that most of your arguement is based upon assumptions since I did not see the same issues with Pinder's words that you have. Attempts at providing a lecture versus actually answering the questions smacks of avoidance of the issue.
Quote:
Let me illustrate with an example that you're requiring something that isn't fair in any sense:
Person A makes the following invalid argument:
Define Leprechauns as the greatest thing that can be imagined
Leprechauns either exists or doesn't exist
Leprechauns are great, but they're even greater if they exist than if they don't doesn't
Therefore Leprechauns exists
Now person B points out:
In the first row you define a word that in the definition contains a value, which is an invalid form that usually causes errors that crucially disrupt the argument. As long as you make such a mistake the rest is an unreadable mess. Fix this and we will then discuss if what remains afterwards is acceptable.
Then Bluearm says:
Person B, you're making a fallacy and arguing form over substance! You must show where person A is making his fallacy, otherwise you're wrong! Person A has presented a valid argument but you argue form not substance!
The books say:
Bluearm and person A are wrong! An argument containing fallacies may or may not be correct, but in order to have a proof you must have an argument that is necessarily correct. From the moment the fallacy is pointed out, until person A revises his argument to remove the fallacy, the argument is considered possibly true, not necessarily true, i.e. it's not a proof. If person A really has a valid argument, he should be able to remove the fallacies and present a revised argument. However if the fallacies are inseparable from the argument, then the argument isn't a valid proof, since it can never be necessarily true.
THis is not the approach you have taken in this arguement. I find it rather amusing that you attempt to lecture on a course of discussion that you yourself have not taken. Whats even more amusing is your attempting to change my statement to mean something else, I have been rather amused by the attempt. Here let me use the actual sentence again so maybe you will read the actual wording versus making an assumption of what was stated. And I see that your still avoiding answering the question of isn't arguements of form over substance a logical fallacy in itself? Lets see I have not made any claims about being an expert in logic, and you have. Neither have I attempted to reword your statements to mean or state something else, but in several recent occasions you have done so. So I must ask you what logical fallacy are you now committing?
What is even more telling is that you still have not answered the question.
Isn't arguements of form over substance a logical fallacy in itself? You might have attempted to answer the question with this statement, " Logic is a set of rules. An argument must follow those rules to be logically correct. The rules are nothing else than forms. But these forms are strongly tied to substance."
But you did not - it really is a yes or no question. Is not arguements over form in itself a logical fallacy?
-
Re: Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
@Redleg: look in my post #463 and look at the quotes. The quotes demonstrate his redefinition. But let's hypothetically say he had the latest definition all the way from the beginning. Then my answer to that case is to be found in post #463. Then let's hypothetically assume he originally had a different definition from start. Then my answer can also be found in post #463. Read the answer you think applies and tell me which case you chose, and whether you have any comments regarding the answer I gave.
===
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Is this is an attempt at an appeal to authority, or an attempt to back out of answering the questions posed and to respond to the actual arguement?
Yes it's an appeal to authority! Logic is a set of rules, you need to listen to the rules and follow them in order to be able to say you're using logic. You're allowed to not use them if you like, but then you shouldn't claim to be using logic. Quite simple. Now if I may not appeal to authority for instructions on how to use rules invented by human beings, then how do I know what the logical rules are? Maybe we need to dig up Aristotle's texts and see them with our own eyes before we can say we're using logic? Or maybe it's good enough to do what I'm doing - following the rules of logic presented in at least 10 books that I've read on the subject. Please tell me what you think is a good method for finding out what the rules of logic are, if you think otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Isn't arguements of form over substance a logical fallacy in itself? You might have attempted to answer the question with this statement, " Logic is a set of rules. An argument must follow those rules to be logically correct. The rules are nothing else than forms. But these forms are strongly tied to substance."
But you did not - it really is a yes or no question. Is not logical arguements over form in itself a logical fallacy?
Pointing out a fallacy is never a fallacy, so the answer is "no". But claiming that the fallacy has a certain consequence (such as that it invalidates the entire opponent's argument) may or may not be a fallacy, depending on the context and the claim being made. The important thing is that arguments that contain one or more fallacies are usually unreadable and it's unclear what the remainder (if there is any remainder) after the fallacy has been removed really means. If he has a valid proof idea in his mind though, he should be able to rewrite his proof without the fallacies. If the argument is inseparable from the fallacies, his argument is possibly but not necessarily invalid, but a proof must be a necessarily valid argument, so the burden of rewriting the argument without the fallacy lies on him, if he still wants to claim the statement to be true.
