28 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, you are right, that must be the part that he is disputing. I just wish he would actually say it. Something like:
Premise 1. is essentially a premise that everything that exists, exists in a subset of time (the definition of 'cause' implies it).
So he is disputing premise 1.
I feel that premise 1 is invalid: I do not think it is true that everything that exists has a cause since I know of at least one thing that exists and has no cause (God). I do think it is true that everything that exists within time has a cause but God is outside of time.
or something like that in his own words. GB, is this a good representation of your view?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause it then allows you to track back and analyse the premises that lead to that conclusion and identify the one(s) that are wrong. The arguments take the form:
Tell me what is the point of getting a logical conclusion, if the conclusion is false?
1 All [Widgits] have a [dongle]
2 This [pludge] is a [widget]
3 Therefore, this [pludge] has a [dongle]
Substitute whatever you are discussing for [plodge], [widget] and [dongle].
If it is obvious that the [pludge] does not have a [dongle] then the conclusion is wrong and the reason for that (because the logic itself is valid) must be that one of the premises is wrong: either the [pludge] is not a [widget] (premise 2 is wrong) or not all [widgets] have a [dongle] (premise 1 is wrong).
These are very simple logical devices and maybe that is what has been getting in the way. A more involved logical sequence with more steps might produce a more intelligent discussion. No theist is going to dispute that God exists and neither are they going to accept the conclusion so the only bit that can be wrong in their eyes is premise 1. I just find it weird that they won't actually say that since it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, given their beliefs.
--- Penguin.
28 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinIt is false logic to conclude something different about God when only one logic premise "God exists" pertains to God. So it is obvious if one of the two logic premises is false, then the conclusion will be logically false.
Yes, you are right, that must be the part that he is disputing. I just wish he would actually say it. Something like:
I feel that premise 1 is invalid: I do not think it is true that everything that exists has a cause since I know of at least one thing that exists and has no cause (God). I do think it is true that everything that exists within time ...[text shortened]... hing like that in his own words. GB, is this a good representation of your view?
--- Penguin.
28 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, that is not a valid logical sequence. There is nothing linking the two premises, so the conclusion does not logically follow.
Is anything wrong with this logic?
[b]1. I exist
2. God exist
3. Therfore, I am God
Maybe, it should be:
1. God exist
2. I exist
3. Therfore, I am God
Which is the best logic?[/b]
Penguin.
28 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinFirst, thanks for mentioning "personal reasons". I do hope they resolve near term in ways favourable to you and your family.
I got a little frustrated with his, seemingly willful, lack of comprehension and I am currently in a less lenient mood than normal for personal reasons. I will rephrase...
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, are you arguing with the first premise, the ...[text shortened]... ll the best place to look) and see if that uses premises to which you can subscribe.
Penguin.
Second, let's take another simplified objective and unemotional pass on wolfgang's original post:
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Yes. Everything within the human realm that exists has a cause or multiple causes.]
2. God exists [Yes, without a beginning or a termination because of His essence: the attributes of eternal and immutable.]
3. Therefore God has a cause ["1." Refers to the human realm; "3." Presumes to apply the human realm to God. Invalid.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm.]
28 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinPlease see my reply to your earlier post on the previous page. Thank you.
Because it then allows you to track back and analyse the premises that lead to that conclusion and identify the one(s) that are wrong. The arguments take the form:
1 All [Widgits] have a [dongle]
2 This [pludge] is a [widget]
3 Therefore, this [pludge] has a [dongle]
Substitute whatever you are discussing for [plodge], [widget] and [dongle].
If it ...[text shortened]... y that since it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, given their beliefs.
--- Penguin.
28 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, the only requirement for logic is that true premises always produce a true conclusion. If a premise is false it is still possible to generate a true conclusion. For example:
It is false logic to conclude something different about God when only one logic premise "God exists" pertains to God. So it is obvious if one of the two logic premises is false, then the conclusion will be logically false.
1) If I am a giraffe then Mars is Red.
2) I am a giraffe.
3) Therefore Mars is Red.
(1) is vacuously true because Mars is Red whatever my state of being.
(2) is false.
(3) is true.
The argument is valid (the logic's fine), unsound (valid argument, but one premise is false), and with a true conclusion.
28 May 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDT, now and then, I still of your site profile question and its answer: "42". Thanks.
No, the [b]only requirement for logic is that true premises always produce a true conclusion. If a premise is false it is still possible to generate a true conclusion. For example:
1) If I am a giraffe then Mars is Red.
2) I am a giraffe.
3) Therefore Mars is Red.
(1) is vacuously true because Mars is Red whatever my state of being.
(2) is ...[text shortened]... e logic's fine), unsound (valid argument, but one premise is false), and with a true conclusion.[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo you mean your reply on the previous page to my post also on the previous page, where you say the argument is flawed because of it's "assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time."?
Please see my reply to your earlier post on the previous page. Thank you.
Or your reply on this page to my post on the previous page, where you say that the argument is "Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm"?
If it is the first, I have answered that twice already. The logic makes no assumption of time. Premise 1 does through the definition of 'cause'. So surely you mean "I believe premise 1 is false because..." as I have suggested several times in this thread.
If it is the second, then that is a slightly different argument but still boils down to "I believe that premise 1 is false because....". In this case it is that only things that exist in the human realm are necessarily caused.
GB and RJ, I am honestly not trying to trick you here. There is no scheme to get you to admit to something that might make you look silly. It is perfectly valid to say that "since God exists and is not caused, premise 1 must be false". I have no master plan, and I really don't know whether Wolfgang59 had any direction he wanted to take the discussion when he made the OP. I can just clearly see a perfectly good criticism of the original argument and am simply baffled as to why you guys are not explicitly taking it.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinOriginally posted by Penguin
Do you mean your reply on the previous page to my post also on the previous page, where you say the argument is flawed because of it's "assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time."?
Or your reply on this page to my po ...[text shortened]... argument and am simply baffled as to why you guys are not explicitly taking it.
--- Penguin.
Do you mean your reply on the previous page to my post also on the previous page, where you say the argument is flawed because of it's "assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time."?
Yes. Here it is again for your convenience:
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
First, thanks for mentioning "personal reasons". I do hope they resolve near term in ways favourable to you and your family.
Second, let's take another simplified objective and unemotional pass on wolfgang's original post:
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Yes. Everything within the human realm that exists has a cause or multiple causes.]
2. God exists [Yes, without a beginning or a termination because of His essence: the attributes of eternal and immutable.]
3. Therefore God has a cause ["1." Refers to the human realm; "3." Presumes to apply the human realm to God. Invalid.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm.]
28 May 14
Originally posted by FMFI think you are right - GB is never laughingly stupid - more tragically stupid.
This is an interesting take. I see it slightly differently. I see him as actually trying to disguise his inability to understand and his inability to engage you in discussion properly. He does this ~ as ever ~ with "wilful" non-sequiturs and red herrings or copy pasting irrelevant stuff or re-copy pasting previous posts. I don't think he is pretending to not und ...[text shortened]... and. I think it is for real. I also get the impression he simply does not want to understand. 😉
He hides behind what he thinks are the wise words of others with his cut n paste and, as you say, never wants to engage in debate or learn. His posts condemn him; he is an intellectual weakling.
RJ on the other hand is comical - I do not believe anyone is that stupid -
he is just playing with you guys. I have finished feeding him as its got
boring of late.