Therefore, there is a god

[skepticalbip]

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.

Hey, people generally go with their strong suit. It is easier for those who don't understand the rules of logic to offer personal attacks than it is to reason.

 

[phands]

This thread is just a waste of electrons. Speak doesn't understand logic, and refuses to see that conclusion doesn't follow from premise. Plus his early boastfulness seems to indicate that he is unaware of the basic error.

 

[Wiploc]

Speak, would you be willing to paraphrase the argument?

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

That way we can see what you think it says, and may be able to lend clarity.

I'm wondering whether you apply "not true" to "I pray" rather than to "If I pray, my prayers will be answered."

And I wonder whether you assume a missing premise, something like, "If prayers are answered, there is a god."

Can you help us out here?

 

[Rhea]

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.

Hey, people generally go with their strong suit. It is easier for those who don't understand the rules of logic to offer personal attacks than it is to reason.

Which is a little funny and ironic, since BOTH the pigeon and I don't understand the rules of logic, but at least I'm willing to test them with an example that can be carried out...

 

[skepticalbip]

Hey, people generally go with their strong suit. It is easier for those who don't understand the rules of logic to offer personal attacks than it is to reason.

Which is a little funny and ironic, since BOTH the pigeon and I don't understand the rules of logic, but at least I'm willing to test them with an example that can be carried out...

That observation was a generality. However if as you claim you don't understand the rules of logic, apparently your strong suit is reasoning which you went with. The pigeon's strong suit and fallback position seems to be snarky personal attacks.

 

[Rhea]

Hey, people generally go with their strong suit. It is easier for those who don't understand the rules of logic to offer personal attacks than it is to reason.

Which is a little funny and ironic, since BOTH the pigeon and I don't understand the rules of logic, but at least I'm willing to test them with an example that can be carried out...

That observation was a generality. However if as you claim you don't understand the rules of logic, apparently your strong suit is reasoning which you went with. The pigeon's fallback position seems to be snarky personal attacks.

Sorry - I did get that it was a generality - just laughing that if I applied it literally, and I have never studied logic or logical formats, it demonstrates that pigeon was taking the easy cheap personal attack route and he didn't have to.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

That's both an insult and an unfounded claim about my state of mind.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Possibly but then you are the flies.

"Pointed out" is the wrong word. You point out evidence, not your own preconceptions.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Hey, people generally go with their strong suit. It is easier for those who don't understand the rules of logic to offer personal attacks than it is to reason.

More of the same. You're just wasting your own life.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is just a waste of electrons. Speak doesn't understand logic,

How would you know?

and refuses to see that conclusion doesn't follow from premise.

Are you talking about your intuition or about formal logic here? You're all for very fuzzy.

Plus his early boastfulness seems to indicate that he is unaware of the basic error.

Which basic error? I'm still waiting for you to explain and thereby show you even know what you're talking about to begin with.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speak, would you be willing to paraphrase the argument?

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

That way we can see what you think it says, and may be able to lend clarity.

I'm wondering whether you apply "not true" to "I pray" rather than to "If I pray, my prayers will be answered."

And I wonder whether you assume a missing premise, something like, "If prayers are answered, there is a god."

Can you help us out here?

I can reassure you here. I'm good. I checked it out. There's no doubt as to the interpretation. And I'm pretty good at it, too, whatever you might want to claim.

So, no, I don't mis-read the thing. "not true" applies to the conditional, obviously.

Good try but no.

You should all look up to what Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 did. Instead, all you're all doing is vacuous claims you're unable to argue. Rather pathetic. Shows you in the wrong kind of light, I think.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a little funny and ironic, since BOTH the pigeon and I don't understand the rules of logic, but at least I'm willing to test them with an example that can be carried out...

How would you know I don't understand the rules of logic?
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which basic error? I'm still waiting for you to explain and thereby show you even know what you're talking about to begin with.
EB

The same basic error which has been pointed out multiple times.

"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 "

is reworded as:

"If there is no gasoline in the gas can, then it is not true that if I fill my car's tank with it, my car will be able to drive. I don’t fill my car's tank with it; therefore, there is gasoline in the gas can".

You are essentially saying that any gas can which you do nothing with is proven to have gasoline in it. There may be a structure by which that is logically valid, but that just means it's a poor logic structure.

 

[atrib]

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

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

" therefore, there is a god " does not logically follow from "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray;" There is insufficient information to ascertain if gods really exist.

"If there are no cat-dogs, then it is not true that if I wish really hard for a cat-dog, I will have a cat-dog. I don't wish for a cat-dog; therefore there are cat-dogs"

The conclusion "there are no cat-dogs" does not follow from the conditions stated. There is insufficient information to ascertain if cat-dogs really exist.

Also, cat-dog is not defined. You and other people may be able to visualize what a cat-dog might look like, and may have your own personal preferences as to the properties of a cat-dog, but there is no consensus because nobody has ever seen a cat-dog.

You probably understand all this and are out to pull someone's leg. Or maybe you actually think you are making a valid argument. Which would be quite sad. But then again, billions of people have imaginary friends they talk to on a regular basis. Who am I to judge?

 

[ruby sparks]

How would you know I don't understand the rules of logic?

This thread?

You see what's happened? You've opened yourself up to being taking the piss out of and in return you're calling others names. Not because you made a mistake. Anyone can do that. But because of the way you responded.

There was another alternative, available quite early on. Can you guess what it was?





("Oops I may have goofed this time", possibly?).


ps citing Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20's explanations. Like it. Excellent ruse. Wink wink. Exit strategy. Integrity intact. Comments to others validated. Gotcha, squire.

 

[Rhea]

How would you know I don't understand the rules of logic?
EB

Because you’re willing to argue that an empty gas can is full of gas.

 

[phands]

It got exactly the attention it deserved. It is just tediously wrong.

And now it has had way more attention than deserved. The OP is wrong, and the OPoster refuses to have a real discussion. Time for this thread to die.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How would you know I don't understand the rules of logic?
EB

Because you’re willing to argue that an empty gas can is full of gas.

To be fair, we don’t know that the gas can is empty. We have no knowledge about what is or is not in it one way or another because the premises do not provide any information from which we can reach a conclusion.

 

[ideologyhunter]

At this point....
> My stoner friends from the 70s would fire up a giant doobie
> My dog would cease to wonder what new word I was saying and yawn at me
> I would transfer to Freethought Humor

 

[Bomb#20]

"If there are no cat-dogs, then it is not true that if I wish really hard for a cat-dog, I will have a cat-dog. I don't wish for a cat-dog; therefore there are cat-dogs"

The conclusion "there are no cat-dogs" does not follow from the conditions stated. There is insufficient information to ascertain if cat-dogs really exist.

Also, cat-dog is not defined. You and other people may be able to visualize what a cat-dog might look like, and may have your own personal preferences as to the properties of a cat-dog, but there is no consensus because nobody has ever seen a cat-dog.

What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatDog

 

[Grothendiecksbitch]

This post of mine didn't get the attention it deserved. So, I have to try here, see if the Higher Spirit who is inhabiting this adobe can inspire proper cogitation.

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

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

Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
EB

So, this bit of propositional logic is so simple it should be understood by all here. However, it happens to be a logical truth, i.e. it is always true, which should be a real shocker for most people here since it says there is a god.

So, me, I have a simple explanation but this thread isn't about me. It's about you, and specifically whether you can question your own assumptions so as to get to the truth.

So the question is as follows:

Can you see intuitively whether it is a logical truth?

So first, if you feel intuitively it is, please tell me if you feel comfortable with a piece of logic proving there is a god?

Now, if you feel intuitively it's not a logical truth, then, just to make sure, how would you go about proving it isn't?

For those who don't have any intuition about it, you can go in peace, there's a logical truth that says a god will provide somehow.

And for all the few big mouths here who can't even argue their case, please don't waste your time, just abstain.

Thank you to all.
EB

“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.”

For now, let’s assume that this argument is logically valid—i.e., that the conclusion deductively follows from the two premises.

Even in that case, the argument is not an example of, as you write, “a logical truth, i.e., [an argument that] is always true.” The only kind of argument that is always true is a valid one with necessary truths—propositions that are true in every possible world—for premises. Yet your premises are not necessary truths. For possibly, God does not exist yet your prayers will be answered.* So, even if your argument is logically valid, before we can know whether its conclusion is true, we must discover whether its premises are true in the actual world.

Now, let’s examine the logical form of your argument. The form boils down thus ("¬G" = "God does not exist"; "P" = "I pray"; "M" = "my prayers will be answered"; "¬P" = "I don't pray"):

(1) ¬G ⊃ ¬(P ⊃ M)
(2) ¬P
(3) ∴ G.

Unfortunately for you, (3) does not deductively follow from (1) and (2). An argument is deductively valid if and only if its conclusion cannot be false while its premises are true. But (3) can indeed be false while (1) and (2) are true—i.e., even if God does not exist, still it can be true (i) that you do not pray and (ii) that if God does not exist, then it is not the case that if you pray, your prayers will be answered.

Q.E.D.

* Imagine a possible world in which you are in a simulation run by humans who answer your prayers. That mere possibility proves that it is not a necessary truth that if God does not exist, then if you pray, your prayers will not be answered.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

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

" therefore, there is a god " does not logically follow from "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray;" There is insufficient information to ascertain if gods really exist.

"If there are no cat-dogs, then it is not true that if I wish really hard for a cat-dog, I will have a cat-dog. I don't wish for a cat-dog; therefore there are cat-dogs"

The conclusion "there are no cat-dogs" does not follow from the conditions stated. There is insufficient information to ascertain if cat-dogs really exist.

Also, cat-dog is not defined. You and other people may be able to visualize what a cat-dog might look like, and may have your own personal preferences as to the properties of a cat-dog, but there is no consensus because nobody has ever seen a cat-dog.

You probably understand all this and are out to pull someone's leg. Or maybe you actually think you are making a valid argument. Which would be quite sad. But then again, billions of people have imaginary friends they talk to on a regular basis. Who am I to judge?

So true.

Lots of folk will tell you they don't believe in magic yet they think gods are real. They just believe in an invisible magician that does the same things. And they think they are being reasonable by not believing in magic. People love their magic creatures.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hear that? ANIMALS are now calling for this thread to die.
ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF!!!!!
Buck-buck-buck-buck-buck, COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Hoot. Hoot. Hoot. Hoot.
Chuck-chuck-chuck-chuck-chuck. Et cetera. Chuck.