25 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe argument that God is just an abstract concept is just as valid a proposition.
Before things get too feisty 🙂, two definitions of real seem to be floating around:
1. real(1): The property of emprical existence; i.e. the property by which an entity can be experienced through the senses (or extensions thereof, such as scientific instruments)
2. real(2): The property of conceptual existence; i.e. the property by which an entit ...[text shortened]... tities - e.g. the number 2 vs. "two oranges"😉, it is implied that one is talking of a concept.
Numbers are how we represent real quantities and are the basis for the most basic of all sciences: Mathematics. as such the difference between 2 oranges and 3 oranges is a real difference, as you would readily find out if you had 2 oranges and tried to eat the 3rd one.
25 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompArguments are not propositions. Validity is assigned to arguments or the conclusion of arguments. A proposition itself can be a premise or a conclusion, but it is not an argument.
The argument that God is just an abstract concept is just as valid a proposition.
Numbers are how we represent real quantities and are the basis for the most basic of all sciences: Mathematics. as such the difference between 2 oranges and 3 oranges is a real difference, as you would readily find out if you had 2 oranges and tried to eat the 3rd one.
Numbers need not represent anything empirical to be real things. You would be throwing out thousands of years of science and philosophy if that were the case.
25 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm not. You can tell because I said "There does not exist" rather than "There exists."
It follows that there does not exist a claim that is both A and false.
Ah, but that is the whole point of this exercise. Look at the last sentence of your proof - you are saying that there exists a claim that is both A and false.
25 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat doesn't make it any more real(1), but it does make it real(2).
The argument that God is just an abstract concept is just as valid a proposition.
Numbers are how we represent real quantities and are the basis for the most basic of all sciences: Mathematics. as such the difference between 2 oranges and 3 oranges is a real difference, as you would readily find out if you had 2 oranges and tried to eat the 3rd one.
25 May 05
6 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI suggest you join the remedial course in critical thinking that I have been suggesting to Coletti.
Your conclusion is "A is false". Hence, there exists a claim that is A and false.
There does indeed exist a claim A that is false. I don't dispute that.
Perhaps you don't understand the structure of a proof by contradiction. In such a proof, the prover intentionally introduces a false premise, namely that which he intends to show to be false, in order to demonstrate that it entails a contradiction. The prover doesn't assert anything that follows in the proof until that false premise has been discharged.
You'll note that when I say "There does not exist a claim that is both A and false," that follows from the yet-to-be-discharged false premise. As such, it's not something that I assert to be true outside of the proof by contradiction. The claim "A is false" is derived only after the false premise has been discharged. Thus, when I claim "A is false" as the conclusion of the proof, I am not contradicting my own analysis; the sub-claim "There does not exist a claim that is both A and false" is derived from a false premise and obviously is not maintained once that premise has been discharged -- that is, it is true only in an artificial uiverse in which one accepts the false premise. That is, if I assert X implies Y, I'm asserting just that -- I'm not asserting Y.
Specifically, I'm asserting "A implies 'there does not exist a claim that is both A and false.'" -- I'm not assserting "there does not exist a claim that is both A and false."
This truly is a basic concept in critical thinking. I'm surprised that you're not familiar with it. I suggest you two go over and over this example until you thoroughly understand it:
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~mbelzer/insidelogic17.html
particularly the notion of discharging the false assumption.
25 May 05
So you've made up this question to prove that God, who can't be real, did or did not create anything? Or are you proving that nothing is real? Or that thinking clearly is not worth the trouble it takes?
I'm not proving anything. I'm asking you two questions, and then seeing if your responses are sensible or if they imply a contradiction. I think these questions are especially appropriate since most xtians I have met claim that God created reality.
God created everything except Himself.
Ok. Fair enough. I assume by this that you mean that God is real. Therefore your answer to the first question, given the way I have defined reality, should be, "No." And your answer to the second should be "No."
I have to wonder telly, what is it you want from life? It's not worth it to spend your life trying to deny God, only to face Him in the end. And when that day comes there won't be any time nor inclination to try to talk Him out of existing. God is not trying to deny you, but He is out to draw you into His house for fellowship and fun! God loves you bud!
Thank you, chin. As I have been used "by God" to bring souls into the kingdom, I am well aware of both the requirements and the perks. If I ever find myself convinced that your idol is anything more than one of a myriad of human superstitions, then I know exactly what to do.
It's funny that you say that there "won't be any time to talk Him out of existing." Do you really believe that we atheists are all so dishonest? Isn't it possible that non-believers just don't find your faith very convincing? Isn't this even more likely given that I shared your faith for most of my life and have been an active recruiter within it?
At least in my case, I can say with all sincerity that declining your god's love has nothing to do with recalcitrance. It has everything to do with self-honesty.
25 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, truthhood an existence are not the same. If propositions exist, then some of them are false. Further, obviously, there are things that exist (like objects and their modal and relational properties) that do not have truth values ('cause truth-values can only be assigned to things like sentences, statements and propositions; things with 'propositional content'; things that assert that the world is some way or other).
Bingo!
EDIT: That's the point of my question - is truthhood and existence the same?
25 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I suggest you join the remedial course in critical thinking that I have been suggesting to Coletti.
There does indeed exist a claim A that is false. I don't dispute that.
Perhaps you don't understand the structure of a proof by contradiction. In such a proof, the prover intentionally introduces a false premise, namely that which he inten ...[text shortened]... .edu/~mbelzer/insidelogic17.html
particularly the notion of discharging the false assumption.
You claim that A is true.
It follows that A is not false.
It follows that there does not exist a claim that is both A and false.
Thus, there is at least one thing that does not exist.
It is surprising that you would make such a fundamental mistake as putting the conclusion you wish to prove into your argument as a premise. You want to prove that "at least one thing does not exist". Within you argument you place the premise "there does not exist a claim..." which you claim follows from your previous premise. (Later you said that the claim does exist.)
But your claim does not follow, and it is what you are trying to prove. Your argument is in fact circular. If you want to prove some things do not in fact exist, you can not simply assert that a claim does not exist. You must prove it with a valid argument.
Try using standard logical forms instead of you informal statements you claim to be logical inferences. I think you will see that you can not prove anything does not exist.
Also, your abuse ab hominems are getting stale.
In standard form your argument is:
A is "all things exist"
A is true
not (A is false)
implies
(A is false) is false
therefore
"all things exist is false", is false.
Now you would like to read the last as "there does not exist a claim..."
But it does not follow. So your proof is invalid.
25 May 05
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with you here. My particular point was that 90% of the time, when people say something exist or does not exist, they are really trying to say that something is true or false as defined, or that something does not have empirical evidence.
No, truthhood an existence are not the same. If propositions exist, then some of them are false. Further, obviously, there are things that exist (like objects and their modal and relational properties) that do not have truth values ('cause truth-values can only be assigned to things like sentences, statements and propositions; things with 'propositional content'; things that assert that the world is some way or other).
Unicorns exist - maybe true or false
Unicorns are fictional animals - is true.
Unicorn are empirical animals - is false.
25 May 05
Originally posted by Coletti[b]You claim that A is true.
It follows that A is not false.
It follows that there does not exist a claim that is both A and false.
Thus, there is at least one thing that does not exist.
It is surprising that you would make such a fundamental mistake as putting the conclusion you wish to prove into your argument as a premise. ...[text shortened]... last as "there does not exist a claim..."
But it does not follow. So your proof is invalid.[/b]I demand to know who gave a rec to this nonsense. This post is an affront to human rationality.
25 May 05
Originally posted by Colettiproposition:
Arguments are not propositions. Validity is assigned to arguments or the conclusion of arguments. A proposition itself can be a premise or a conclusion, but it is not an argument.
Numbers need not represent anything empirical to be real things. You would be throwing out thousands of years of science and philosophy if that were the case.
noun: (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false
one meaning of argument :
noun: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true
25 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompI noticed you did not use the logical definition of argument.
proposition:
noun: (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false
one meaning of argument :
noun: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true
logical statements with conclusion: a unit of reasoning moving from premises that provide evidence to a conclusion
Propositions are statements.
Propositions are the building blocks of arguments.
There are two kinds of propositions or statements:
1) premises
2) conclusion
A syllogism is an argument with 2 premises and 1 conclusion. For a syllogism to be a valid argument, the conclusion must be logically implied by the premises.