Therefore, there is a god

[Bomb#20]

And that would be wrong. There are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true. Something you could check easily enough for yourself.

No, what I said is that if P2 is true (i.e., if S2 is false, i.e., if you do not pray), then P1 is false

No.

P1 and P2 can be both true and at the same time. That's what I meant here. So, it not true to say as you do here that if P2 is true, then P1 is false.
EB

Angra Mainyu is perfectly correct. I posted a proof in the other thread.

 

[Lion IRC]

I can’t believe this thread has run so long.

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

“If there is no God”
If God doesn’t exist, who will answer Speakpigeons prayer ?

“I don’t pray”
OK fine. No prayer? Nothing to answer.

“Therefore there is a God”
How would you know if you never have a prayer awaiting an answer?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And that would be wrong. There are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true. Something you could check easily enough for yourself.

No, what I said is that if P2 is true (i.e., if S2 is false, i.e., if you do not pray), then P1 is false

No.

P1 and P2 can be both true and at the same time. That's what I meant here. So, it not true to say as you do here that if P2 is true, then P1 is false.
EB

I already explained to you that if P2 is true, then the consequent of P1 is false, so (again, assuming P2 is true) P1 is true if and only if its antecedent is also false, i.e., if and only if it is false that there is no god, iff there is a god. So, again, granting that you do not pray (so, P2 is true), it's obvious to me that P1 is true if and only if there is a god. Since I have no good reason to believe there is a god, and it's transparent to me that P1 is true iff there is a god, I also have no good reason to believe P1 is true, given that P2 is.

Now, you say that P1 and P2 can be both true at the same time. If you're talking about the statements by their logical form (and regardless of meaning), and you're always using the material conditional "if", then sure. When you include what the statements actually are, it's apparent that they're both true (as material conditionals; else, you equivocate on "if" as Bomb#20 explained in the other thread) if and only if you do not pray (which is true) and there is a god. But since I have no good reason to believe there is a god, I have no good reason to accept P1.

Alternatively, you can take a look at Bomb#20's proof, which is probably clearer. A subtlety: his argument is somewhat different from mine because he points out that you're equivocating on "if" because you use it to refer to both the material and the counterfactual conditional, whereas I assumed for the sake of the argument in that reply that it is a material conditional throughout your argument, in which case the problem is that P1 and P2 are transparently both true if and only if you do not pray and there is a god, so given that I grant that you do not pray, obviously I have no good reason to accept P1 since I have no good reason to believe there is a god.

But I think Bomb#20's reply is clearer than mine, so I recommend it.

 

[Wiploc]

P1: If the universe exists, it must have a creator.
P2: The universe exists.
Therefore, the universe has a creator.

The Cosmological argument is logical in form, yes;

You mean it's valid.

I don't concede that the first cause argument is valid, but if the conclusions follow from the premises then you have validity.

but it is not valid, because P1 is not necessarily true.

Here you mean it is not sound. If the form is valid and the premises are true, then the syllogism is sound.

I don't know whether having a premise that is "not necessarily true" makes an argument unsound. If the premise is untrue then the argument is unsound, but if the premise isn't proven to be true then maybe the argument is just not proven to be sound. On this point, I'm not taking a position, just expressing my own doubts.

 

[Wiploc]

It's not me saying it's true.

Look around, it's just you.

I'm just reporting.

You are making a false claim in the teeth of the evidence. Your claim is obviously false. It is, as has been pointed out, a logical fallacy. The name of the fallacy, as has been pointed out, is affirming the consequent. Several of us have given examples so you can see exactly how the fallacy works. Here's another one:

Example of affirming the consequent

P1: If A then B.
C: B, therefore A.

Now in case the problem isn't obvious to you, here's another example.

Example of affirming the consequent

P1: If it's raining, then water exists.
C: Water exists, therefore it's raining.

I hope you can see the problem now, but if you can't that doesn't mean you should keep treating other people as stupid or stubborn just because you made a mistake.

The thing is a logical truth,

It is, as several people have pointed out to you, an error.

or a tautology

No fallacy is a tautology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, all I can say is that you seem pissed off by this idea that god could be proven by pure logic.

P1: If the universe exists, it must have a creator.
P2: The universe exists.
Therefore, the universe has a creator.

The Cosmological argument is logical in form, yes; but it is not valid, because P1 is not necessarily true. It has not (I would say cannot) been demonstrated that existence requires creation.

Not logical in form, no. The term "must" isn't equivalent to the term "can". You need to add something about the logical relation between the two. Easy enough, though, at least to get the "logical form".

Still, I agree with your point here.

I'm not in the least pissed off that there are theistic arguments that can be stated as logical prepositions. It does sometimes piss me off though, when theists try to claim those arguments are valid without being able to demonstrate that validity. And I've seen that happen a great many times.

Sure, I'm like you, but that doesn't interest me. What does I that you would be pissed off by a logical argument looking conclusive to you.

And I see you haven't even tried to show the OP's argument to be inconclusive.

Oh, well, maybe it just look inconclusive to you. Good enough, I guess.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

The Cosmological argument is logical in form, yes; but it is not valid, because P1 is not necessarily true.

True, but the OP argument here isn't even valid or logical.

You haven't shown that. Your transcription is wrong. Look at the one done by Angra Mainyu. That's the way to do it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

As I said earlier...tediously stupid and wrong. Conclusion doesn't follow from premise, and despite being told this frequently, speak isn't prepared to listen.

Hardly anyone on internet forums, at least not the (supposedly) rationalist ones I have frequented over the years, is often or ever prepared to say whoops, I may have got that wrong. What most do (and I suffer from this tendency myself) is stick to what they started out with, no matter what. It's a bit......regrettable, in a way. One would have hoped that as aspiring rationalists we could be less dogmatic.

I'll do that when I'm shown to be wrong and I haven't seen that yet (at this point I still have to look at Bomb#20's proof, though... ).

I should have to point that out. It's pretty obviously the rational thing to do, no? You bet.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

No.

P1 and P2 can be both true and at the same time. That's what I meant here. So, it not true to say as you do here that if P2 is true, then P1 is false.
EB

Angra Mainyu is perfectly correct. I posted a proof in the other thread.

Thanks! You did take you time, though. I'll look at it.

I suspect we're going to differ on the formal transcription of the statement. But, maybe not. Hmm.

For now, i need a decent meal. It's lunch time here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I can’t believe this thread has run so long.

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

“If there is no God”
If God doesn’t exist, who will answer Speakpigeons prayer ?

“I don’t pray”
OK fine. No prayer? Nothing to answer.

“Therefore there is a God”
How would you know if you never have a prayer awaiting an answer?

I'm certainly not supposed to know. I'm supposed to accept the logical conclusion of the logical truth. And if I don't like it, then I try to show it somehow isn't a logical true. Something you're not even trying. So, it's not with posts like yours that this thread is going to stop any time soon.

Maybe you could pray for it to stop?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Look around, it's just you.

Look around, there's more than this forum in the real world.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are making a false claim in the teeth of the evidence. Your claim is obviously false. It is, as has been pointed out, a logical fallacy. The name of the fallacy, as has been pointed out, is affirming the consequent. Several of us have given examples so you can see exactly how the fallacy works.

What evidence?! You haven't shown any!

Show formally how the OP's argument would affirm the consequent. Fluffy logic doesn't work on me.

Also, you could have noticed it's not even the counterargument used by either Angra Mainyu or Bomb#20.

Ah, well, you won't ever listen, anyway.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back in the early 70's I programmed with a simple language called PL1, Programming Language 1. We used lots of If, Then, GoTo commands, sorted arrays, etc.

If the op statement is logical then it ought to lend itself to being programmed with the end result being that the god variable goes from a value of zero to a value of greater than zero. I can easily make that happen by adding something to the god variable and then recalculating the value of the god variable. But the program would have little value unless it made sense, unless it was doing something useful.

But I'll get started and Speak can take it from there. The god variable will be G. Here goes:

If G=0

 

[Rhea]

I'm going to start with the last sentence first:

So, all I can say is that you seem pissed off by this idea that god could be proven by pure logic.
EB

LOL I am totally not pissed off, I am curious how you decided that I was. I'm laughing at your "logic" claim.

That's not a truth.
If some "system" of logic contends that it's a truth, then I can propose an easy-peasy experiment to refute your logic system.

Step One. Get an empty gas can.
Step two. Get you to recite your "logical truth"
Step Three. Look in the gas can.

Conclusion: Logic system refuted, declared useless.


So maybe your point was to either
A. show that this "logic" system is useless and gives false results or
B. Demonstrate that you do not understand how to use the logic system.


(Anyone want to place any bets?)

This thread isn't meant to be about betting on the truth of statements. There are enough idiots at the White House, thank you.

So, apparently, you know it's not a truth.

Dude. Carry out the above experiment. The gas can is still empty. That's how we both know the logic doesn't work. You can refute the logic statement with the experiment. The gas can is empty.

Well, can't beat that. Can I bet that?

And I certainly wouldn't want to suggest I disagree with you but the point is whether you can explain why it wouldn't be a "truth".

Because the gas can has no gas in it, despite your "logic" claiming that it does.

Something you haven't done at all. You haven't even tried.

The gas can is still empty.

Also, I'm still happy and not pissed off in the least.

 

[skepticalbip]

This seems to be a rather silly thread. Anyone who maintains that "logic" can prove a false assertion to be true is arguing that logic is a useless exercise.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Back in the early 70's I programmed with a simple language called PL1, Programming Language 1. We used lots of If, Then, GoTo commands, sorted arrays, etc.

If the op statement is logical then it ought to lend itself to being programmed with the end result being that the god variable goes from a value of zero to a value of greater than zero. I can easily make that happen by adding something to the god variable and then recalculating the value of the god variable. But the program would have little value unless it made sense, unless it was doing something useful.

But I'll get started and Speak can take it from there. The god variable will be G. Here goes:

If G=0

I think the thing is much more simple than that myself. Programming things is good and I do it myself on occasions but here it would be a real waste of time. Even arguing about it as you do is in effect a waste of time. But I can't stop you looping again and again. Do as you please.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm going to start with the last sentence first:


LOL I am totally not pissed off, I am curious how you decided that I was. I'm laughing at your "logic" claim.

This thread isn't meant to be about betting on the truth of statements. There are enough idiots at the White House, thank you.

So, apparently, you know it's not a truth.

Dude. Carry out the above experiment. The gas can is still empty. That's how we both know the logic doesn't work. You can refute the logic statement with the experiment. The gas can is empty.

Well, can't beat that. Can I bet that?

And I certainly wouldn't want to suggest I disagree with you but the point is whether you can explain why it wouldn't be a "truth".

Because the gas can has no gas in it, despite your "logic" claiming that it does.

Something you haven't done at all. You haven't even tried.

The gas can is still empty.

Also, I'm still happy and not pissed off in the least.

You don't seem to understand the rules of forum talk. I started a thread and on my own terms. If you don't like them, you're free not to post anything. It's up to you to try to post something relevant. You post anything irrelevant you like, but it won't stop the thread. The only way to stop a thread is for all posters to refrain from posting, assuming they're not too pissed off to let go of it, and for now, they are too pissed off. So, go on with your irrelevant jerrycan, I don't mind. I'd prefer you address the OP properly, but obviously I can't force you. Life is short, though. Irrelevance seems a costly way of life, to me at least.

Still, I'm enjoying a good laugh when I can. Even if that can is still empty.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back in the early 70's I programmed with a simple language called PL1, Programming Language 1. We used lots of If, Then, GoTo commands, sorted arrays, etc.

If the op statement is logical then it ought to lend itself to being programmed with the end result being that the god variable goes from a value of zero to a value of greater than zero. I can easily make that happen by adding something to the god variable and then recalculating the value of the god variable. But the program would have little value unless it made sense, unless it was doing something useful.

But I'll get started and Speak can take it from there. The god variable will be G. Here goes:

If G=0

I think the thing is much more simple than that myself. Programming things is good and I do it myself on occasions but here it would be a real waste of time. Even arguing about it as you do is in effect a waste of time. But I can't stop you looping again and again. Do as you please.
EB

Okay, I'll finish the program according to your simplicity observation.

If G = 0 Then G > 0

I think that about covers it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This seems to be a rather silly thread. Anyone who maintains that "logic" can prove a false assertion to be true is arguing that logic is a useless exercise.

Long time no see, Love. Nothing too brilliant to add to this debate, apparently. Well, nothing unusual in that so I guess it's fine.

You get close to a truth there, but it's clearly just happenstance. Not quite the thing. Like a dog peeing and almost drenching a budding fire, almost but not quite.

Ah, well, time to get some sleep here.

I'll have to have Bomb#20 wait a bit for a response. I'm nervous he might be right.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

You don't seem to understand the rules of forum talk. I started a thread and on my own terms.

The terms being that if people disagree with your nonsense, you will insult them and make unfounded claims about their states of mind.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Your supposedly logical syllogism was nothing of the sort. As pointed out, it was a non sequitur.

You are beating a rather dead horse. Continuing to beat it simply disturbs the flies swarming that particular carcass.