PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     Logical Arguments on God
       no cop-outs allowed

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In a logic, only one bad example is needed to disprove a premise.
Bad logic:
1. 5 is two greater than 3
2. 5-2 = 3
3. Anything minus two is 3.
That's the deductive fallacy falling hates.
Sound logic
1. 5 is two greater than 3
2. 5-2 = 3
3. 6 is two greater than 4
4. 6-2 = 4
5. Anything minus two does not necessarily = 3

Since Alex was trying to DISPROVE something, rather than prove it, he needs only to find one example where the premise, God is all powerful, isn't supported by its own logic. And he did.

Falling your answer to his question was invalid simply b/c invoking the magic word "faith" doesn't solve the logical probelm, it takes the issue outside of it. It is perfectly legitimate to hold that God is outside of logic, but it is not legitimate to use that argument as logical rebuttal to a logical "proof" of no God.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:39 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes dsa, i realize that the word "failth" must not be used in a logical problem. that is why i stated that "i know i shouldnt" use the word faith. in fact dsa, i do believe that God is outside of logic. but what i am trying to do is prove that alex's argument is not sound.

and it isnt sound. was alex trying to disprove something? yes, of course he was. but when you are disproving something, your first premise must not be the thing that you are disproving. the thing that you are disproving must only be reserved for the conclusion. IT IS LOGICALLY UNSOUND TO SAY ONE THING IN ONE PREMISE, AND THEN TO SAY SOMETHING COMPLETE OPPOSITE IN THE CONCLUSION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE DISPROVING SOMETHING. ask any philosophy or logics professor and they will tell you the same thing.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:08 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually falling...
i didn't make up that proof. it was given to me by a philosophy professor at my university. why don't YOU show it to a logic or philosophy professor and ask them what they think.

and i believe i explained how my conclusion did not contradict my premise. simply put, all i did was provide your definition of God, follow its logical path, and demonstrate that a God by such a definition cannot exist. don't blame me because your definition of God is unsound.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:58 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wtf alex? how many times do i have to tell you that i mispoke (or mistyped) myself when i said that your first premise and your conclusion contradicted? i corrected myself and said that your first premise contradicted your sixth premise. i have a few questions for you to answer:

1. do you agree that it is impossible for God to both exist and not exist?

2. and if so, doesnt that mean that either your first premise or your sixth premise is incorrect?

3. would you agree then that if an argument contains a false premise that is not true, then the whole argument is unsound?


i have a feeling that your philosophy teacher was so atheistic that he was desperate to do anything to prove that God does not exist...even if it came to the point of using unsound logic. now answer my 3 questions


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:47 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, what you just said is why Alex's proof is logically sound (in terms of proving God can't logically exist). The premise 1 can't be true if premise 6 is true. But premise 1, as Alex showed, leads to premise 6. Thus premise 1 has to be false. That is perfectly sound.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:31 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With our phisical eyes we can not see God. We can't Touch hime either. As a matter of fact the only way you can prove there is a God, is by eliminating all the other ways of comming into being. I know that the Bible talkes about God comming to Job in a whirlwind, to Moses as the burning bush, and Jacob wrestling with God, but outside of faith I don't think you can prove that there is a God except through His Creation. (So this would end up being a Creation/Evolution debate).
-FP
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:46 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa, try answering the 3 questions that i asked alex


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:33 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok.
1) yeah, i agree
2) no, the 6th premise is the logical followup to the 1st, so it disproves it. 6 disproves 1. The viceversa isn't true (logically)
3. Not if the objective is to prove that a premise is logically impossible.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:55 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa, if one cannot have both the first premise be true and the other premise true at the same time, then that automatically makes the argument unsound. did we not establish the fact that in logic, one bad premise makes the whole argument bad?

alex's first premise was that God is all-powerful. his sixth premise was that God is not all-powerful. this logically means that ONE of the premises were WRONG or FALSE. thus, the whole argument is bad


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:54 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok. Let's play make believe. Pretend the  Alex WAS trying to proove that a Christian God can do anything. So he starts out with premise 1, that God is all-powerful. Fine. Then he moves down through the stream of logic and it takes him to premise 6. And there the logic falls. In logic, all it takes is ONE WRONG example to disprove the entire thing. Else I could argue.
Premise 1: God created the Earth
Premise 2: It is impossible for anyone else to have the power to create the earth.
Premise 3: Therefore God can do anything.
Premise 4: I win.
There are probably a million streams of logic that would lead to a conclusion that God is all powerful. To disprove that, all Alex has to do is find one that doesn't.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:46 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want it can be structured like this
1: To be all powerful, you have to be able to lift anything
2: To be all powerful, you also have to be able to create anything
3: If God is all powerful, he has to be able lift any size rock
4: If God can lift any size rock, he cannot create a rock too big.
5: Therefore, God can't be all powerful


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:48 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok dsa, logically your proof makes a little more sense because the premises do not openly contradict eachother like alex's did

you say that to disprove that God is all-powerful, then all alex has to do is find one that doesnt. well what about the other way? i say that to disprove alex's claim that God does not exist, then all i would have to do is find one that doesnt


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:06 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, doesn't work. To proove something isn't true, u need only need one example. to prove something is or "isn't isn't" you need 1 and then need to make sure nothing else logically disprooves it.
But fine, if my proof is more agreeable to you, then disproove mine.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:48 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually alex i believe i answered it with another perfectly logical proof for why God must exist.

this argument is clearly reasonable. God can do nothing that refutes his perfect existence, say such as commit sin. he is absolutely perfect.

1. God exists.
2. God is perfect/omnipotent
3. God can't break his own laws.
4. God is unable to create a rock he cannot lift, but is still omnipotent and perfect.

The assumption that he can create something he can not lift would be a lie because no matter the size he could lift it. Thus God is omnipotent but he his bound/freed by the inability to sin. God can not contradict himself for it would be a lie. And he cannot lie. GOD EXISTS!!!! Refute my argument again. I haven’t heard why The universe must be infinite from anybody yet. There must logically and clearly be an uncaused cause of the universe, because we exist now. Time up to now has ended thus it is not infinite. Happy no faith involved except the first premise. Please I need better logical explanation against my logical reasoning for God.    



-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 11:15 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your argument is fallacious. Here's why
to 1: That premise is by no means a fact. But let's assume that it is true
to 2: you can't be perfect and omnipotent at the same time. Perfect means you always do good, all the time, omnipotent means you can do anything (good or bad). I believe God is omnipotent if anything, b/c he certainly does bad (thou shalt not kill especially seems to be ignored rather liberally).
to 3: then he's not omnipotent, b/c he is incapable of doing something. There is no reason he can't break his own laws. He's God. He is above the law. By putting a constraining factor on God, you throw out the myth that he is omnipotent.
to 4: So God can do anything even though he can't do everything. please. You can use this stream of thought to support that God is perfect, but not omnipotent.

There is no reason God can't lie, or sin. Why can't he?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:27 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa, you claim that to prove something isnt true, you need only one example.

ok, so if i come up with ONE example to prove atheism isnt true, then atheism is not true?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:19 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. If the Christian god exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. [propositonal function]
2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true. [propositional function]
3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable. [proposition based on observation]
C. The Christian god does not exist.


Argument: The original document of the Bible is inerrant. Counter-argument: There is a problem with the verification of this claim, and that is that we are not in possession of the original document of the Bible. But let us continue to investigate the argument, using available translations (e.g., the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the RSV, the Darby, and the YLT). In combination, they use the available documents, including the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and the Dead-Sea Scrolls. Hence, our method brings us as close as we can possibly get to the original text. We will look at three Bible passages: Acts 13:17-22, 1 Chron. 29:27-28 and 1 Kings 6:1. The first two in conjunction inform us that Solomon's reign began at least 530 years after the Hebrews left Egypt. But 1 Kings 6:1 claims that Solomon's reign began 476 years after the Hebrews left Egypt - a discrepancy of at least 54 years.[7] Hence, the original manuscript of the Bible contained at least one error (no matter if the Septuagint is correct with reference to 1 Kings 6:1 or if all the other translations mentioned above are correct), which means that the Christian god cannot possibly exist.


Argument: Any Bible translation is inerrant. Counter-argument: One example which disproves the just-made argument will be provided from the King James Version (the same error is provided in the RSV, the Darby, and the YLT). 2 Chron. 9:25 says, "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen..." while 1 Kings 4:26 says, "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." This contradiction is de facto in place in the KJV, which renders that translation imperfect. Hence, the Christian god - omnipotent and perfect - cannot possibly exist. (It is to be noted that the Masoretic Hebrew text contains this contradiction, but some Septuagint manuscripts do not. Thus, it is possible that this contradiction is not in the original text, although we do not know that; but it is certainly in most Bible translations.)


Argument: The Bible is clear and unambiguous. Counter-argument: To claim this is quite stark, because history tells us that Christian unity on doctrinal issues, even fundamental ones, as well as convincing anti-Christian challenges, have been abundantly present.  Most of these differences are based on different interpretations of Christian revelation. To suppose that there is a rational way to reconcile these controversies by appealing to revelation stretches credibility to the breaking point." And the list of intra-Christian controversies could be made much longer: suffice it to mention the papacy, the doctrine regarding Mary, the trinity, baptism, speaking in tongues (where, interestingly, Fundamentalist Baptists and Fundamentalist Pentecostals disagree), the issue of creationism, predestination, purgatory, consciousness after death, and so on. Since the Christian god is perfect and omnipotent, could he have produced the Bible, on which perfect agreement cannot be reached by humans? No. In addition, these type of unclear matters give anti-theists plenty of ammunition, which god surely would have prevented, should he have existed. In all, it is clear that he cannot exist.


Argument: There is an objective way of determining which document is the written revelation of god. Counter-argument: There is no such objective way of determining whether the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavadgita, the Book of Mormon, the Edda, or Homer are true divine revelations. It is often possible to prove that a certain document is not a true revelation of a certain god (which is what this essay is doing with reference to the Bible and the Christian god), but to prove that a document is truly divine in an objective manner, one would need some type of additional revelation from god, which in itself must be unambiguous. However, if this god can provide such an unambiguous revelation, the question is why he did not produce such absolute clarity in the first place. Without such self-contained evidence, one could never be certain that a document is truly divine. (As an aside, necessary but certainly not sufficient conditions for true divine inspiration are complete logical consistency and inerrancy with regard to all facts external to the document itself.) And since such evidence is not in existence, the Christian god cannot possibly exist.
Any one of these points is, in itself, sufficient for us to understand that the Christian god cannot exist. Taken together, they constitute overwhelming evidence to this effect.

We began this essay by generously granting the Christian the assumption that the Christian god does, indeed, exist. We then used logic to derive what the characteristics of this god's revelation would be like, and found that (i) the original text must be inerrant; (ii) all later manuscripts and translations must be inerrant; (iii) this revelation must be unambiguously clear in every respect; and (iv) there must be some objective way for humans to know that this document is "the real thing." These four demands follow directly from the characteristics of the Christian god, most notably those of perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience: this god not only must want his only written revelation to be inerrant in all dimensions, he is also capable of seeing to its being produced in such a way.


We then proceeded by scrutinising how the Bible does on these four points. The result was overwhelmingly clear: the Bible is not inerrant in its original text, to the best of human knowledge; it is not inerrant in all its later manuscripts and translations; it is not unambiguously clear; and there is no way to determine objectively if it, rather than, say, the Koran, is divine.


The only possible conclusion from this is that the Christian god - i.e., the god of the Bible - cannot possibly exist. If one assumes that he does, as we did, and looks at the implications of this assumption, one finds that the implications are such as to violate what we detect in the real world.


Now it does not take much knowledge of psychology to understand that the argument of this essay is very disturbing to a Christian. He may bend over backways to try to rescue his specific version of theism, but he must, if he is to retain intellectual credibility, explicitly point out how a perfect and omnipotent god can provide a revelation which violates his very nature. Or he may resort to the classical way out: misology, i.e., to claim that his god is a mystery which cannot be understood.












 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:15 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very clever, but I am going to play devils advocate here. Your entire argument hinges on the premise that any inconsistancy in the bible today has absolutely always been their. Here's the problem: A copies of the bible must be directly and perfectly translated from a previous copy. Which is fine...until someone misses an error. Then that error enters the circulation, and gets copied down again etc.. There is an entire school of jewish study dedicated to "reconstructing" the text where obvious typographical errors have obscured the meaning. So it is possible that the original was perfect and the mistakes were added in by fallable men.

Falling if you could logically proove one instance where God absolutely had to exist, where their was no other way around it, then yes atheism would be disproven. Start your engines.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:24 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa, i dont think that you can logically prove or disprove God so i'm not going to try. sorry

their are quite a few mistranslations in the bible un fortunatly


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:43 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling,
you started to post here, attacking my logic, offering some of your own, and then concluded that, "i dont think that you can logically prove or disprove God so i'm not going to try". I give you the second place cop-out prize (1st place goes to broker, who permanently bowed out of the gay rights forum because apparently I was being too "emotionally charged" - check it out, funny as hell). look at what he says there, and look at the progress of what you posted here, and answer honestly whether you think it suggests a level of desperation to believe in God and His laws so great as to smother reason. in my humble opinion, i have found with all religious people that after all is said and done, logic is used and then abandoned, that the real reason they believe can be summed up in this sentence, or in something close to it: "I just can't imagine and/or live in a world in which there was no God". Now, if you admit to this (don't worry, I don't expect u to),u can counter with (and people often do): "But what's wrong with that?" well, personally (and of course along with most of the thinkers who helped bring us out of the Dark Age and then absolutism, and shape modern Western civilization), i don't think wanting something to be true is a good reason to believe something is true. I mean, I REALLY wish Hayden Christensen was gay, but I don't have "faith" that he is just because the alternative is less preferable. (sometimes I pretend he is though...you know, when my beau and I are doing some roleplaying...).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:53 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hey that was me. why didn't it say my name?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:51 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

when did i ever say that i could logically prove or disprove God?

and btw alex, while you were gone most everybody came to the conclusion that you perfect God proof was not a sound one. in fact dsa had to rewrite it in order to make it more sound

but nice try though


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:50 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AlexanderTheGreat at 08:56 AM on January 4, 2003 :
Okay, people...

i want to hear people give logic-derived arguments for and against the existence of a God.

Who can debunk this argument?


Alex I feel sorry for you.  My belief in God is a good bet.  

Don't belive in God:
When you die you rot in your grave.

Belive in God:
I will see my friends and family after judgement day.  For this reward all I have to do is minimal amount of faith.

Plus being a Christian is a good way of life.  There is some really good advice on how to live life in the Bible.  That also goes for all other faiths.  If your a law abiding and compasionate person then just a little faith will get you a big reward on judgement day.

Don't you think that is a good bet worth taking?


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:43 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

kelvin,
somehow i doubt God would give you eternal bliss because you managed to play your cards right. if what you just said really the reason why you believe in God, then you are screwed!

falling,
Dsa rewrote my logical proof because you didn't understand it. my proof is still right. look back it. my first premise was that you define God as all-powerful. my conclusion was that such as God cannot exist. it never contradicted itself. and as i remember, dsa agreed my logic was sound. nice try though.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 4:12 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kelvin, your argument is called Pascal's wager.  It has been around for along time and throoughly debunked.

This argument, first formulated by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, is sheer intimidation. It is not a case for a god's existence: it is an argument for belief, based on irrational fear. With this kind of reasoning we should simply pick the religion with the worst hell.

It is not true that the believer loses nothing. We diminish this life by preferring the myth of an afterlife, and we sacrifice honesty to the maintenance of a lie. Religion demands time, energy and money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of this world. Religious conformity, a tool of tyrants, is a threat to freedom.

Nor is it true that the unbeliever gains nothing. Rejecting religion can be a positive liberating experience, gaining perspective and freedom of inquiry. Freethinkers have always been in the forefront of social and moral progress.

Pascal was a Catholic and assumed that the existence of god meant the Christian God. However, the Islamic Allah might be the true god, which turns Pascal's wager into a riskier gamble than intended.

In any case, a belief in a deity based on fear is not a belief that produces admiration. It does not follow that such a being deserves to be worshipped.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:23 AM on January 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsa you say "possible that the original was perfect and the mistakes were added in by fallable men."

If god is omnipotent, then wouldn't he make certain that no mistakes were made by fallable men.  Either he wanted his words to be copied down wrong, or he couldn't stop them from being copied down wrong.  Why would god want his words to be copied down wrong?  That doesn't make any sense.  So it must be he couldn't stop the errors man made, which makes him not omnipotent.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:32 AM on January 13, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well there is no reason God would care if they were copied down right. You could reasonably argue that once God told us the law, he couldn't care less what we did with it on earth, and was willing to let us screw it up as we wished. Nothing beats and apathetic God...


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:49 PM on January 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, some of you need a crash tutorial on logic.  I will try to go over some elementary introduction to logic, and then I will respond to your posts accordingly.

Aristotle (everyone knows who he was...) started the rules of formal logic.  This is why some people refer to it (any logical system that follows this set of rules) as Aristotelean logic .  These rules are as follows:

1.  The identity is true: if A is a statement, then A is A is true.
2.  There is no contradiction:  if A is a statement, then A and not A can't both be true.
3.  Either a statement is true or it is not true (but not both and not neither).

To even use any logic, there must be some accept truths (these are called axioms).  

Propositional Logic

A set of axioms exist.  Some connectives are defined.  These are: AND, OR, NOT (or some derivable variations of these [e.g. implies, XOR]).  Let A, B, C, D be axiomatic statements.  Propositional logic defines (in addition to the rules of Aristotle), the following rules:

1.  A AND B is true if and only if both A and B are true.
2.  A OR B is true if and only if A is true, B is true, or both A and B are true.

(I realize this looks obvious, but it is the basis of logic and, to a certain extent, computation... how computers operate.  Some of you should know this real well)

First Order Logic

First order logic is an level above Propositional Logic in a sense that it defines classes (or sets) and quantifiers.  Some people credit Gotlob Frege (in his paper Begriffsschrift) for what is called Predicate Logic, a type of First Order logic.  Frege's work had the intention of creating a theory of natural language (which, many found to be insufficient).  In either case, First Order Logic adds what are called classes which are simply sets of objects and two quantifiers:

1.  There Exists (The Existential Quantifier):
    if P(A) is a statement of logic (First Order Logic; notice how this definition is recursive, but not viciously recursive) that depends on an element A and B is a set, then "there exists X in B such that P(A)" is true if and only if there is an X in B where P(X) is true.

2.  For all  (The Universal Quantifier):
    if P(A) is a statement of logic (First Order Logic; notice how this definition is recursive, but not viciously recursive) that depends on an element A and B is a set, then "for all X in B such that P(X)" is true if and only if all element X in B, P(X) is true.


In Predicate Logic, for example, there are predicates (functions from objects to truth or falsity).  P above is an example of a predicate.  Anyway, I am not here to give a rigorous development of logic.  I will give a reference to some books on logic at the end of the post if you're interested.  Most modern branches of math follow these rules.  Set Theory (again, I won't discuss this to detail) defines certain basic rules that are the foundation of mathematcs (this is a field of research).

Second Order Logic
This is more complicated and classes of predicates are allowed.  This is normally NOT used very often, so I will ignore it here.  Again, refer to some books for more information.



Ok, now that we're on sort of the same page.  Let's look at some of your posts.




i'll start with one.
.
1. Theists (maybe not Jews) define God as all-powerful.
2. Therefore, God can lift any size rock.
3. Therefore, there can be no rock too big for God to lift.
4. Therefore, God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift.
5. Therefore, there is something God cannot do.
6. Therefore, God is not all powerful.
7. Therefore God does not exist (per the definition given by its believers).

Who can debunk this argument?


The explanation to something that seems logically right..  The statement "there is an all powerful being" leads to a paradox.  If you don't remember, a paradox is an statement that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises (or assumptions).  When this happens, it means that your set of premises is incomplete (or inconsistent).  As an aside, the premises of mathematics have been found to be incomplete in the mid 1900s.  This is an astounding result.  Anyway, the paradox in your arguemnt is similar to what is called Russell's Paradox.  You can look this up on the internet or in some book on Set Theory if you want to know.  To briefly relate it to what you said, to remove this paradox from Set Theory, people added an axiom that says (not exactly, but essentially) that there is no largest set.  Let's dwell into your arguments a little before looking at the paradoxical point.  Your assumptions are:

God as all-powerful.  

with "all-powerful" meaning being able to do everything (analogous to containing everything... in reference to the Russell Paradox)

The paradox appears in:

4.  Therefore, God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift

because it can be shown to be both true and false based on the assumption.  (4) is false because god is all-powerful (by definition, (4) must be true), so he can create everything.    On the other hand, (4) is true because if it were false then there is a rock that god can't lift, violating (1) (this is true contraposition, modus ponens, and Aristotle #2).

I just showed (4) is true and then I showed that (4) is not true, so (4) is inconsistent with your set of premises, showing that the system consisting of some of the commonsensical stuff along with "there is a god that is all-powerful" is incomplete (a treatment of completeness of logical systems is in one of the books below.  I have no time or space to give it here).  Some people take this to mean that the question of whether there is a god cannot be answered logically.  

(*) Just as you can't tell whether the sentence: "this sentence is not true"
is true or false.  Btw, (*) is the basis for the proof by a mathematician named Godel (pronounced ger-del) that arithmetic as we know it is incomplete.  The proof, of course, has more details and is complicated.  He devises a scheme called Godel numbering to say, in arithmetic, something analogous to the sentence given in (*).

So the answer is... there is no logical falacy in your argument, but that your system of premises produces an inconsistency.  Your argument is one of the two correct arguments that show that there is an inconsistency in the system.


Deductive Fallacy:
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)


This is, in fact, a commonly made logical fallacy, but it is not one that the previous post made.   Let me recap your intended fallacy:

if P and Q are statements and

(**) P implies Q is true
then Q implies P (some people assume to be true based on (**), but it is, in fact not true).  This can be shown by expanding the "implies" connective into OR and NOT connectives.  A boolean table can be constructed to show this fact.  In any case, you didn't mention how the previous post structurally resembles your given fallacy because it is not possible to... just because it doesn!


THERE, I HAVE DEBUNKED YOUR STUPID AND RETARDED "LOGICAL" ARGUMENT.


No you haven't!


next time, give me more of a challenge


Ok, I'll give you a little challenge (at the end of the post).


(@) Humans are mammals.
(#) Dogs are mammals.
($) Humans are dogs.
(%) Then how am I typing this?

This is the logic problem falling is talking about. Clearly not true, nor accurate.


The problem here lies in the ambiguity in English.  The to-be verb "ARE" doesn't always map to an "if and only if" connective in logic.  Sometimes, it maps to an "implies" connective and sometimes it maps to "belongs to".   To see what fallacy is demonstrated in your toy argument above, you need to make it more precise.  Here are the precise forms of the first two sentences:


(@') if X is in class human, then X is in class mammal
(#') if Y is in class dog, then Y is in class mammal


From the precise forms, you obviously can't make the conclusion that "if X is in class human, then X is in class dog", because doing so requires you to make an argument similar to the portland-maine argument above, and this suffers from a fallacy I just described.


God is defined as the Greatest.
Something that does not exist isn't as great as something that does exist.
God must exist.


As someone already mentioned, "Something that does not exist isn't as great" is not necessarily a true assertion!


Where is the problem with the dogs/humans thing? According to logic, it makes perfect sense-but clearly isn't true. Going with logic, Alex's makes perfect sense-but that doesn't mean it is true.


Actually, according to logic, it doesn't make perfect sense!


Logically, it is right. Of course, it isn't accurate, but it does show how logic can be flawed.


Logically, it is not right (look at my comments above).  Logic can be flawed, but not in the sense you are talking about.  The flaw in logic is in the "completeness" not in the "correctness" sense (these are technical words that you can look up in books).


i realy dont think there are logical arguments for god.


I agree to a certain extent.


i mean, i cant really explain why i belief in him i just do.


I think this makes you an unreasonable person ;)  No offense intended.  My personal opinion is that if you can't explain something... keep it as an incomplete statement (i.e. don't make an assertion either way).


alling...your logical example is easily kicked out. it IS a classic logical mistake. itr doesn't show logic can be wrong, it just shows an illogical statement. yes, the capitol of Maine must be in Maine, but not all cities in Maine have to be the capitol.


Agree!  As you have seen from my explanation.

pie...yours is a classic one, and a classic example of a fine premise with an illogical conclusion. it does not show that logic can be wrong, it just shows your mistake. humans can be mammals and so can dogs, and trhey can both be mammals without being the same. now...are u going to try to actually debunk MY original statement, or are u and falling going to be my cop outs 1 and 2?


See my explanation above.  The man-dog-mammal argument makes the same fallacy as the maine argument plus some ambiguity.  See my explanation above.


basically, all u guys did was try to prove my logic was wrong by showing 2 illogical statements? what are thinking, trhat all logical statements contain the same fallacy and therefore there is no logic?


I agree this is proposterous...lots of famous mathematicians have tried.  Just look up their works if you want to learn more ;)


1. Alex tried to present logic in an ordered statement
2. we showed him some ordered statements that turned out to be illogical
3. therefore, his ordered statement must also not be logical


The 3 statements above would be good logic if it's written as


1. Alex tried to present logic in an ordered statement
2. we showed him some ordered statements that turned out to be illogical
3. therefore, his ordered statement can be illogical


Why is that?  Figure out for yourself ;)  Just follow the rules from the very top.

And then there are a couple posts that talk about the same thing.


people make mistakes
mistakes are wrong
alex is a person
alex is wrong


That argument above suffers from two of the following three problems (depending on how you look to resolve the ambiguity): ambiguity, having a premise that may or may not be true, and invalid use of the existential quantifier.

The ambiguity is whether "people" means "there are some people"  or "everybody".  If it means "everybody" then the premise "people make mistakes" is NOT true (obviously). If it means "there are some people", then you can't make the deduction "alex is wrong" based on "alex is a person" because the person that alex is may not be in the group that makes mistake.


i personally like madbilly's logical argument over all of ours


Correction... you like madbilly's illogical argument over all of ours ;)


you see my friend, it is very very easy to commit the deductive fallacy. you have just commited it here alex. once again, present with more of a challenge than the one you gave us


Actually, he didn't.  He gave one of the two possible arguments that can show an incompleteness (or inconsistency) to a system of logic (sorry to have to reiterate it).


Madbilly....nicely said.


Not really.  Incorrectly said, really ;)


OK, madbilly's one was funny (not a proper syllogism, but funny). But I STILL don't see any deductive fallacy!!!


I hope my post helped.  Otherwise, I would be glad to recommend some more books.


1.men have a penis
2. women have a vagina
3. opposites attract to each other (like magnets)
4. women and men should attract to each other


This argument has two of the following three fallacies (possibly all, depending on the intended meaning of the ambiguity): ambiguity, invalid premise, and invalid use of the existential quantifier.  This is not to mention the fact that (1) and (2) are stated but not used at all.  I guess this guy's just horny when he typed that.

Ambiguity because (2) says "opposites attract to each other" which can mean (*)"if X and Y are in opposite sexes, then X and Y attact" or it can mean (**) "There are some X and Y with X and Y in opposite sexes such that X and Y attract".  This is an ambiguity between the two logical quantifiers (similar to the people-alex-wrong argument).  If you take the ambiguity to mean (*), then it is taking a false premise.  (*) is NOT true... some couples, obviously, of the opposite sex don't like each other.  If you take the ambiguity to mean (**), then, then it is using the existential quantifier incorrectly.  This is exactly the same form as the alex-people-wrong argument.  Look above for the other explanation.

Ok, I am really tired.  You guys make the same mistake over and over and over and over... I don't have time to go through all of it.  Maybe I'll resume tomorrow.  


Oh right, here are some logic books and math books you may want to read if you're interested in formal logic:

Enderton.  Introduction to Mathematical Logic.
    This is the most basic logic intended book for freshman or sophomore philosophy majors in college.

Schoning. Logic for Copmuter Scientist.

   This is a little more sophisticated and is intended for upper level computer science majors interested in logic.  It talks about some calculus that are useful for automated "arguments" (.. automated theorem proving sound familiar?).


Here are some books on set theory and foundation of mathematics:

Russell. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.
Russell. Principles of Mathematics.
Whitehead. Principia Mathematica.
Suppes. Axiomatic Set Theory.

And this one is particularly a watered down version of Godel's proof (as I mentioned above):

Nagel and Newman. Godel's Proof.
Lastly

Lose. A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science .

This is a phil of science text.  It's very historical but it gives some development of logic and science.  This is good for a high school student.


There are LOTS of books on the subject.  I don't have time to list them.  Look around.  Have fun arguing ;)

I hope there's nothing else that I promised I'd have at the end of this post that I don't remember.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:11 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I survived unscathed! He didn't yell at my logic! I am mr. amauter logic man guy dude! wahooo!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:49 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man guy dude? You seem to feel a need to assert yourself. =)


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 12:20 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that was an amazing post, mr guest. i must hand it to ya. nicely done. you definitly know what you are talking about.  i just knew there was something wrong with alex's "perfect-God proof". now i have a question for you guest...is it possible to prove or disprove the existence of God through logic? (if you have already answered that question, i apologize. it is 1 AM and i am very very tired)


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:53 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how come as soon as someone sounds smart you all lose your capacity for independent thought. i read through guest's deconstruction of my proof and i still don't see how i am wrong. check this out: he says basically it is a paradox because i first say there is an all-powerful God and then become inconsistent in step four. first of all, i never said there was an all-powerful God, i said theists define God as all-powerful. that doesn't matter that much though actually. now, perhaps my logic is inconsistent, but that is because the definition provided by theists is inherently contradictory. that was all i was trying to show. such a god cannot exist because it is by nature self-contradictory and inconsistent.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:48 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think we should give that guest "post of the year" award. he deserves it. that post was genius.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:08 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


how come as soon as someone sounds smart you all lose your capacity for independent thought. i read through guest's deconstruction of my proof and i still don't see how i am wrong.
check this out:

Beats me.

he says basically it is a paradox because i first say there is an all-powerful God and then become inconsistent in step four.
first of all, i never said there was an all-powerful God, i said theists define God as all-powerful.

I didn't use the existence of god to show inconsistency of (4).  Here is the argument:

(4) is false because god is all-powerful (by definition, (4) must be true), so he can create everything.    On the other hand, (4) is true because if it were false then there is a rock that god can't lift, violating (1) (this is true [by] contraposition, modus ponens, and Aristotle #2).


My final conclusion is that commonsensical stuff along with "there is a god that is all-powerful" is incomplete, meaning that there are sentences, namely "there is a god", that are inconsistent inside the logical universe (of commonsensical sentences).


that doesn't matter that much though actually. now, perhaps my logic is inconsistent, but that is because the definition provided by theists is inherently contradictory.


An inconsistency is different from a logical falsity.  Sentence P is inconsistent in U if and only if P and not P are true in U.  Sentence P is false in U if and only P is not true in U.  Now, the sentence that is inconsistent (according to my argument above) is "there is a god".  There is nothing wrong with an inconsistent (/incomplete) universe.  There are numerous examples of this -- arithmetic, for example.  You can create an inconsistency just in regular language (as I mentioned, "this sentence is false", for example).  Does that mean there is something wrong with langauge?


that was all i was trying to show. such a god cannot exist because it is by nature self-contradictory and inconsistent.


Here, you are saying that sentence P ("there is a god") is inconsistent in universe U implies P is not true in universe U ("there is no god").  That is NOT true by definition of inconsistency.



Suppose you are intent on saying that a logical universe that is inconsistent should be thrown out (which means we should throw out most of math...and other things), you should know that people can always patch up their axioms, right?  They can add new sentences to the universe or restrict old sentences to make the universe consistent.  For example, "god is all powerful" can be restricted to, for example, "god is all powerful with soem restriction".... I have no time to think of what specific restrictions would allow you to assert "there is a god" to be true.

Generally, when you use pure formal logic to look at things like this, you inevitibly end up with something ambiguous.  This is because the "commonsensical" stuff (which, for example, tells what "all-powerful" means) is not well-defined.  Unless you have all your variables defined, it's extremely difficult to formally look at anything.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:10 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wow, this guest is just getting smarter by the minute. why dont u register? i'm getting tired of alex running this forum.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:12 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sheesh. i think maybe i am just not smart enough to get it. btw, i have no problem with adding restrictions to the definition of god as all-powerful, but i doubt theists would be very flexible on it.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 1:02 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its the battle of the logical titans!

But I, a mere mortal, shall venture into the treachrous waters as well.

I am slightly confused by your claim that Alex's logic is merely a proof of "inconsistantancy" because all it shows is that the definition is both true and untrue. But in your first post, you cited a fundamental rule of logic: "2.  There is no contradiction:  if A is a statement, then A and not A can't both be true." Since Alex showed how God being all-powerful would have to be both a true and untrue statement at the same time, it seems to me that it disproves that statement.

btw, was there any problem with my rephrasing of Alex's logic?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:08 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I am slightly confused by your claim that Alex's logic is merely a proof of "inconsistantancy" because all it shows is that the definition is both true and untrue.


Alex's argument is only one of the two proofs that shows the inconsistency (I think I mentioned somethingl ike this).  To show an inconsistency of a sentence you need to show that there is a logical deduction from the logical universe to the sentence and, likewise, there is a logical deduction from the logical universe to the negation of the sentence (this is just by using the definition of inconsistency).


But in your first post, you cited a fundamental rule of logic: "2.  There is no contradiction:  if A is a statement, then A and not A can't both be true."


Yeah, so when a sentence causes an inconsistency, you can throw it (and its negation) out of the theory (in the mathematical sense, not in a "science" sense).
What you end up is an incomplete theory.  
A theory is incomplete if there is a logical sentence (representable inside the logical universe) that is not in the theory and its negation is also not in the theory.  Anyway, I was trying to avoid defining these terms... because I don't want to write a book and no one here wants to read a book by me ;)


Since Alex showed how God being all-powerful would have to be both a true and untrue statement at the same time, it seems to me that it disproves that statement.


He didn't do that.  He showed "there is a god" is false, so showing "there is a god" is true in the same logical universe implies "there is a god" is inconsistent.

I think you meant "there is a god" (not "God being all-powerful") because Alex assumed to be true the fact that "God is all-powerful".  Suppose that's what you meant.  I also will assume you mean "disproves that statement" to be "makes the statement false."  You are basically saying what he did that inconsistency is the same as falsity.

Let's take a simpler example.  Let's take a logical sentence (that I have mentioned before)

(*) "This sentence is false"

Add this to a "commonsensical" logical universe of logic gives you an inconsistency, right?  Because
1*.  "This sentence is false" is false -- by itself
2*.  "This sentence is false" is true -- because if this sentence (namely "this sentence is false") is false then it must be true that this sentence is true.
So you can arrive at an inconsistency if you add this (*) to the "commonsensical" logical universe.  To make the theory consistent, you have to throw out both (1*) and (2*), making it incomplete (that is, you can't decide whether (*) is true or false).

So we already know that there is a contradiction in (*).  Would you say that it makes sense to conclude that that sentence is false?  Even without invoking the formal definitions, I think intuition would say no because it remains a fact that we can show the sentence to be true.

I realize these are all very "loose" examples and not so rigorous, but I can't be rigorous without being too long.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:37 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in the "this sentence is false" scenario, the two possibilities (the sentence being true, which makes it "false", and false which makes it "true") can't occur. The sentence  is neither true nor false. The claim the sentence is making (That it is false) can't happen due to the stream of logic that the statement must follow (the consequences of saying its false, which would make it true). What I believe Alex was saying was that the claim "God is all-powerful) cannot happen b/c the logical stream it must follow cannot allow it to be true. But unlike the false sentence situation, it is possibly for BOTH of the two consequences of Alex's to be false (that God CAN'T create a rock he can't lift and that God CAN'T lift any size rock). So it seems solid to me. But again, what about my logic?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:51 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. expert guest.  You didn't comment on one of them. How is this one not logical.

1.  If the christian god exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.  [propositional function]
2.  If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true.[propositional function]
3.  The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, not objectively verifable. [proposition based on observation]
4.  The Christian god does not exist.

Look forward to you answer!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:16 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A)His original message was presumably error free, but may have been corrupted over time.
B)He may not have intended what he dictated to be perfect. We have to think for ourselves on occasion.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 10:57 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in the "this sentence is false" scenario, the two possibilities (the sentence being true, which makes it "false", and false which makes it "true") can't occur. The sentence  is neither true nor false. The claim the sentence is making (That it is false) can't happen due to the stream of logic that the statement must follow (the consequences of saying its false, which would make it true). What I believe Alex was saying was that the claim "God is all-powerful) cannot happen b/c the logical stream it must follow cannot allow it to be true.


What Alex is saying (you can check with him) is that if you accept the fact that "God is all-powerful", you can logically derive the conclusion that "there is a god" is false!  That's different from what you say.  What I am saying is that Alex is right, but you can also derive the conclusion that "there is a god" is true.  This means that the truth-falsity of sentence "there is a god" can't be decided.


But unlike the false sentence situation, it is possibly for BOTH of the two consequences of Alex's to be false (that God CAN'T create a rock he can't lift and that God CAN'T lift any size rock). So it seems solid to me. But again, what about my logic?


As an aside: "Possible" shouldnt't hold any merit in logic.  What if it's possible that 1+1 is 2, but we don't know for certain.... How would you trust how your house's built?  ;) Logic should be the same.  It's the deductiong using logic that's different.  If your logic is different ours, then we have no starting point, and all of these arguments are worthless.

In either case, you are making the same point over and over.... Alex MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT "god is all-powerful".  By any sense of all-powerful, "that God CAN'T create a rock he can't lift" is trivially true, trivially.  This goes the same for "that God CAN'T lift any size rock"; Alex claimed the former in able to arrive at the conclusion that "there is a god" is false.    What was different about my long post was that I derived the opposite conclusion just from the same assumption.  This gives an inconsistency... and yada yada about how inconsistency and falsity are different.


Post #2

Mr. expert guest.  You didn't comment on one of them. How is this one not logical.


Ok.  I am going to make some comments to clarify each step (in case there are ambiguity), and then I'll look at the whole argument at the end.


1.  If the christian god exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.  [propositional function]


Fine, formalize this a little: you are saying it is true that:

"there is a christian god" implies "there is someone who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good".

There are several things someone say about that (not necessarily against it).  

0. This is NOT a propositional function. It's a proposition that you accept to be axiomatically true.  I know you will probably go on picking on this point, so I will elaborate a little.  By definition, a propositional function must depend on at least one variable.  A variable is a name/symbol whose meaning isn't clear in the statement.  There is variable in your statement.  Just think of a propositional function as similar to Frege's predicate....
A.  omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good need some sort of "commonsensical" definitions.
B.  there may be a christian god, but he doesn't have to be the person with the yada, yada, yada... but if there is a christian god, this person exists.  it may be me or someone else.


2.  If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true.[propositional function]


Ok, the ambiguity appears here!  how does his revlation being unambiguously clear follow from "omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good".  More along the same line: how does his revelation being objectively verifiable follow from "omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good".  You can't make those claims because they don't have to be true.  
Btw, this is, again, NOT a propositional function. It's a proposition that you (incorrectly) accept to be axiomatically true.  There is no variable.  When you accept a false statement to be true, you can derive anything.  Anything after here is no longer valid.


3.  The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, not objectively verifable.
[proposition based on observation]


Again, you CAN'T say something is axiomatically true based on observation.  Observation never proved anything in logic.  It verifies things in science, but that's a different kind of "verify" as it is in logic.  You can make an assertion unless there is ABSOLUTELY NO chance that it can be wrong in logic inside your logical universe (what is formally called a structure).  
Just as you can't say, for example, that Newton's laws of physics are right because no one knows if they are.  Actually, we know now that they are not.


4.  The Christian god does not exist.


You arrived at this conclusion from some false assumptions.


Look forward to you answer!


So the problem here is you are trying to derive the conclusion that "The Christian god does not exist" is true.  Along the way you made some assumptions and asked us to accept some commonsensical definitions.  The problem is that these assumptions that you asked us th accept are not true.  If I ask you to accept something that is false as true, then I can (incorrectly) derive anything even the fact that there is a god or there is no god.  

Been a pleasure.  I am sure if you look this up, you'll see more comments by orher people on it.

I didn't have to put any effort into trying to find mistakes in this argument.  If I remember correctly, this is a "high profile" argument.... there's been LOTS of things said about it.  

Btw, I didn't see that because I didn't read that far down the thread.  There are SO many posts on this thread.  Most of them repeat the SAME argument with minor details changed.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:32 AM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry I forgot to close the italic tag.  It's kinda hard to read, but you can probably make out what I meant.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:34 AM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Armaski

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The issue:
1. Theists (maybe not Jews) define God as all-powerful.
2. Therefore, God can lift any size rock.
3. Therefore, there can be no rock too big for God to lift.
4. Therefore, God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift.
5. Therefore, there is something God cannot do.
6. Therefore, God is not all powerful.
7. Therefore God does not exist (per the definition given by its believers).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Okay, starting..

Your first premise is that theists define God as all powerful.  But all theism is is the belief or acknowledgment of the existence of -a- God, not an all powerful one in specific (though most religions do define it that way).  So that dissproves your thing there.

But if you really want to change that and just say the Christian God or something similiar then I'll try this..

God can become a rock he cannot lift (sort of like the rock being the shell and him being within).  Then he can simply lift himself, God, without intending to lift the rock.  But since the rock is lifted anyway because of his actions he is lifting the rock and yet he isn't.  He can't lift the rock himself but when he lifts himself the rock is lifted. My theory can be seen as a little unsound but it makes sense, yes?

And in the event my argument is false then yours still doesn't dissprove God.  All it would do is dissprove the all-powerful God your premises represent.


-------
Disagree? Feel free to IM me on AIM at Armaski to discuss it.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 02:29 AM on July 9, 2004 | IP
zachvac

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, has no one heard of an indirect proof. That's what alex did. The basic idea is this.

You are trying to prove that if p is true, than q is true. Now if you know that, and you know p is true, than you can conclude q is true. Example:
I know that if I'm in Houston, than I am in Texas. If I am in Houston, than I can conclude logically that I am in Texas. The reverse (if q than p) isn't necessarily true. What IS true is that if you know q isn't true, than you know p isn't true. This doesn't work the other way around either.

Back to an indirect proof.
You show if p than q to be true, which is all the statements listed 1 through 7. If you can show q to be false, p is also false. Got that.

p is that god is all-powerful.
q is god is not all-powerful.

q contradicts p because they can't both be true. Therefor p isn't true and god isn't all-powerful.






To Armaski, This is just kind of stupid. If god becomes the rock and he can lift himself, he can lift this rock. It is therefor not a rock he can't lift.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:05 PM on July 12, 2004 | IP
unkerpaulie

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nova, as most people easily pointed out, your 3 sentence logic proves God exists and at the same time proves God doesnt exist. i wouldnt recommend it

for alex, let me show you why the "can God create a rock he cannot lift?" question is logically flawed

lets assume, as a premise, that God is all powerful. he can create any size rock, and he can lift any size rock. the only way he could possibly create a rock too large for him to lift is if he created a rock of infinite size that completely filled up all the space in the universe. in order to lift something, you need space where the object is not so that you can move the object there. since the rock is infinitely large and filling up the entire universe, there is no empty space left for this rock to be moved to, therefore it cannot be lifted

God would not be able to move such a rock, not because of his lack of power, but because a rock cannot logically move if there is no empty space in the universe for it to move to

thus God is still all-powerful


-------
hooked on logic
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:19 PM on October 26, 2004 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's my explanation:  
God has infinite power.  Thus, he can lift infinite mass.  

Therefore, the only rock he would not be able to lift would be one that has greater than infinite mass.  

It is impossible for an object to have greater than infinite mass, thus, it is a paradox.

A truly logical statement cannot contain a paradox.

Since your statement contains a paradox, it is not logical and as such, cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 09:20 AM on January 8, 2005 | IP
Blasphemy

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling-

You mis-state the 2nd law of physics.
Therefore, your entire argument falls apart.

There is no fallacy of logic in Alex's post.

You simply refuse to accept the logic, because in doing so, your god will be destroyed.


-------
Blasphemy-->"JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH!"
Don't make me sic my god on you!
There is no hell. There is only France
-Frank Zappa
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 11:18 AM on January 15, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The really funny thing is that you cannot find the words "omniscient", "omnipresent", or "omnipotent" anywhere in the bible.  These are labels that fallible man has applied to God.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:32 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
Blasphemy

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this god mass or matter?


-------
Blasphemy-->"JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH!"
Don't make me sic my god on you!
There is no hell. There is only France
-Frank Zappa
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 2:52 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.