If god then ...

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only God knows the exact details. We don't have a need to know.

If we did not have a 'need to know', then most of us would be dead before we reached puberty. Its because of our 'need to know' that we have medicine that works, food, water, sanitation and pretty much every luxury you can think of. It's our 'need to know' that means we are not still living in caves.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
If we did not have a 'need to know', then most of us would be dead before we reached puberty. Its because of our 'need to know' that we have medicine that works, food, water, sanitation and pretty much every luxury you can think of. It's our 'need to know' that means we are not still living in caves.

--- Penguin

What I need to know is why folks always seem to take another out of context and create apples and oranges arguments.

It's no wonder none of these debates are ever resolved. Someone says something to something someone said in one post and reinvents the debate over and over again throughout any particular thread.

No doubt I do the same thing! 😵

Originally posted by Penguin
If we did not have a 'need to know', then most of us would be dead before we reached puberty. Its because of our 'need to know' that we have medicine that works, food, water, sanitation and pretty much every luxury you can think of. It's our 'need to know' that means we are not still living in caves.

--- Penguin

But do we need to know the "exact details of every life form that ever lived" that twhitehead was referring to? Does that prevent us from learning what we need to know?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But do we need to know the "exact details of every life form that ever lived" that twhitehead was referring to? Does that prevent us from learning what we need to know?

Generally I think the more information one has the better. I think that there are two senses of the word "need" being confounded in this part of the discussion; the "need to know" of science, where need corresponds to desire and there is also "need to know" where the need corresponds to a requirement for a some course of action.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But do we need to know the "exact details of every life form that ever lived" that twhitehead was referring to? Does that prevent us from learning what we need to know?

you mean this post of his?

I'd be happy to give you a rough summary in another thread, but I suspect you already know it all. I cannot give you the exact details of every life form that ever lived, because I simply do not know, nor should you expect me to know.

No, we don't. Certainly not at the moment to answer the questions we are currently looking into.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by josephw
What I need to know is why folks always seem to take another out of context and create apples and oranges arguments.

It's no wonder none of these debates are ever resolved. Someone says something to something someone said in one post and reinvents the debate over and over again throughout any particular thread.

No doubt I do the same thing! 😵

Ok, then to drag it back on topic, I will (in the style of Robbie) repeat the OP:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Now I don't think anyone has come up with a problem with the logic of the argument (RJ's misunderstandings of logic aside) but the theists generally have a problem with the truth value of premise 1: they think it is false and probably a straw-man of what they believe. RJ's rephrasing of the argument is, I suspect, pretty close to the general theistic belief. I will try to paraphrase it in a consistent logical form:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore... well we cannot derive anything from the premises about any cause of God

If we accept these rephrased premises, is there anywhere further we can go with this reasoning since it leads to no conclusion at all?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
you mean this post of his?

I'd be happy to give you a rough summary in another thread, but I suspect you already know it all. I cannot give you the exact details of every life form that ever lived, because I simply do not know, nor should you expect me to know.

No, we don't. Certainly not at the moment to answer the questions we are currently looking into.

--- Penguin.

Yeah, that's it.

Originally posted by Penguin
Ok, then to drag it back on topic, I will (in the style of Robbie) repeat the OP:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Now I don't think anyone has come up with a problem with the logic of the argument (RJ's misunderstandings of logic aside) but the ...[text shortened]... re further we can go with this reasoning since it leads to no conclusion at all?

--- Penguin.

Number 3 could be:

Therefore, God is not caused.

Like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

Or maybe like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist is caused
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

or maybe even better:

1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Number 3 could be:

[b]Therefore, God is not caused.

No, it couldn't.

Premise 1 does not say anything about things that exist but had no beginning. It only says about things that begin to exist.

The conclusion must follow from the premises. If it does not, then there really is a problem with the logic.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
No, it couldn't.

Premise 1 does not say anything about things that exist but had no beginning. It only says about things that begin to exist.

The conclusion must follow from the premises. If it does not, then there really is a problem with the logic.

--- Penguin.

I believe my last one covers that like this:

1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

Or it could be worded like this:

1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God exists but has no beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

Or what about the logic of this:

1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God alone has no beginning
3. Therefore, only God is not caused.

Or this:

1. All things that begin to exist are caused
2. God alone has no beginning
3. Therefore, only God is not caused.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe my last one covers that like this:

[b]1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God exists but his existence never had a beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

Or it could be worded like this:

1. Only things that begin to exist are caused
2. God exists but has no beginning
3. Therefore, God is not caused.

O ...[text shortened]... to exist are caused
2. God alone has no beginning
3. Therefore, only God is not caused.[/b][/b]

Sorry RJ, you are quite right, I had failed to properly read the last one. The word only in premise 1 does mean it says something relevant about things that have no beginning.

So we have a logically consistent argument here. If we accept the premises, then we must accept the conclusion.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Sorry RJ, you are quite right, I had failed to properly read the last one. The word only in premise 1 does mean it says something relevant about things that have no beginning.

So we have a logically consistent argument here. [b]If we accept the premises, then we must accept the conclusion.

--- Penguin.[/b]

So do you believe that between the two of us that we have solved this logic problem with the last set?

1. All things that begin to exist are caused
2. God alone has no beginning
3. Therefore, only God is not caused.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So do you believe that between the two of us that we have solved this logic problem with the last set?

[b]1. All things that begin to exist are caused
2. God alone has no beginning
3. Therefore, only God is not caused.[/b]

There was no logic problem with the original argument. The issue with the original argument was that you did not believe premise 1 was true (neither do I but for different reasons).

This new version is also logically consistent but uses premises that you believe are actually true.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
There was no logic problem with the original argument. The issue with the original argument was that you did not believe premise 1 was true (neither do I but for different reasons).

This new version is also logically consistent but uses premises that you believe are actually true.

--- Penguin.

I also did not believe the conclusion 3 of the original argument, because it was not true. That is why I considered it a logic problem.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I also did not believe the conclusion 3 of the original argument, because it was not true. That is why I considered it a logic problem.

Now that it has been explained to you, do you agree that the logic is not at fault, but rather the premise? ie do you understand that logic is not right or wrong depending on how true the conclusion, but rather by weather or not the conclusion follows from the premises?