Deism, an intellectually serious position in previous centuries, now must reject scientific explanations

[pood]

(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real

(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:

(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.

(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.

I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.

Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....

...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?

I thought you were kidding about this argument because of the wink smilie, but maybe you are serious??

I was ... I'm just responding to a later post.

“I was” means “I was serious,” or “I was kididing”?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

It’s not stupid, because establishing the formal validity of an argument is the first step toward discovering whether it is sound. Validity is a necessary but insufficient condition for soundness. If an argument is not even valid, it can be dismissed out of hand.

I disagree. Arguing science via rhetoric is nonsensical.

It’s not about science per se or anything in particular. It’s about logical structure applied to any generic argument. The truth of premises must be established empirically. The worth of the validity test is we don’t even need to consider whether the premises are empirically established if the argument is invalid — if the conclusion does not follow from the stated premise. It’s a time-saving heuristic.

Some religious folk like using language to "prove" scientific stuff. I detest it. It promotes using turns of phrases and what not, and has zero validity in the field they are trying to address.

Regarding the logic in its own right, when critical terms are validity and soundness, there is only a tiny subset of psychotic apes that will understand which means wh. So while useful within that subset, not useful in the general population.

 

[Learner]

Sorry, I meant I was initially kidding.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real

(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:

(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.

(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.

I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.

God is designed in a very particular way.

Theist: God doesn't need a cause.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Convenience.

Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....

...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?

Did you define "nature"?

 

[pood]

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

It’s not stupid, because establishing the formal validity of an argument is the first step toward discovering whether it is sound. Validity is a necessary but insufficient condition for soundness. If an argument is not even valid, it can be dismissed out of hand.

I disagree. Arguing science via rhetoric is nonsensical.

It’s not about science per se or anything in particular. It’s about logical structure applied to any generic argument. The truth of premises must be established empirically. The worth of the validity test is we don’t even need to consider whether the premises are empirically established if the argument is invalid — if the conclusion does not follow from the stated premise. It’s a time-saving heuristic.

Some religious folk like using language to "prove" scientific stuff. I detest it. It promotes using turns of phrases and what not, and has zero validity in the field they are trying to address.

Regarding the logic in its own right, when critical terms are validity and soundness, there is only a tiny subset of psychotic apes that will understand which means wh. So while useful within that subset, not useful in the general population.

Well, that’s a problem for the general population, then. Understanding the logical structure of arguments is absolutely necessary to promote critical thinking, which most of us here I think would like more people to possess. A populace with sound training in critical thinking would never have elected Donald Trump — or Ronald Reagan, or about two-thirds of all the presidents, for that matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

It’s not stupid, because establishing the formal validity of an argument is the first step toward discovering whether it is sound. Validity is a necessary but insufficient condition for soundness. If an argument is not even valid, it can be dismissed out of hand.

I disagree. Arguing science via rhetoric is nonsensical.

It’s not about science per se or anything in particular. It’s about logical structure applied to any generic argument. The truth of premises must be established empirically. The worth of the validity test is we don’t even need to consider whether the premises are empirically established if the argument is invalid — if the conclusion does not follow from the stated premise. It’s a time-saving heuristic.

Some religious folk like using language to "prove" scientific stuff. I detest it. It promotes using turns of phrases and what not, and has zero validity in the field they are trying to address.

Regarding the logic in its own right, when critical terms are validity and soundness, there is only a tiny subset of psychotic apes that will understand which means wh. So while useful within that subset, not useful in the general population.

Well, that’s a problem for the general population, then. Understanding the logical structure of arguments is absolutely necessary to promote critical thinking, which most of us here I think would like more people to possess. A populace with sound training in critical thinking would never have elected Donald Trump — or Ronald Reagan, or about two-thirds of all the presidents, for that matter.

That is a false statement. The brain doesn't work that way. People who are good at critical thinking are good at manipulation of facts to work in ones favor. The far right SCOTUS judges are not stupid. They are very intelligent and gifted at rearranging facts and truths to follow their narrative.

Critical thinking is important, but it isn't hallowed.

 

[pood]

Keep in mind that if one wishes to argue that God created the universe, one must first provide an argument that God exists. Since there is of course zero empirical evidence for a god or gods, this is a bit tricky to say the least. Attempts to argue God into existence by logic alone go back at least to St. Anselm and his Ontological Argument. Kurt Gödel in the 20th century offered a modal logical update on the Ontological Argument, probably the best attempt ever made at this forlorn endeavor.

 

[pood]

That is a false statement. The brain doesn't work that way. People who are good at critical thinking are good at manipulation of facts to work in ones favor. The far right SCOTUS judges are not stupid. They are very intelligent and gifted at rearranging facts and truths to follow their narrative.

Critical thinking is important, but it isn't hallowed.

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest. They know their arguments are bullshit but they push them anyway for some personal or political advantage. I’m talking about the average person who is sincerely interested in figuring out how to logically assess arguments. All people with sincere interest should study formal logic, including modal logic.

 

[Learner]

(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real

(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:

(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.

(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.

I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.

God is designed in a very particular way.

Theist: God doesn't need a cause.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Convenience.

Yeah sure, my point is: I ain't falling for it.

Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....

...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?

Did you define "nature"?

It was merely an example.. otherwise.. I would have made that clear and defined nature being sure we can 'all agree on' definition terms before making the proposition ...which would come with a conclusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a false statement. The brain doesn't work that way. People who are good at critical thinking are good at manipulation of facts to work in ones favor. The far right SCOTUS judges are not stupid. They are very intelligent and gifted at rearranging facts and truths to follow their narrative.

Critical thinking is important, but it isn't hallowed.

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest. They know their arguments are bullshit but they push them anyway for some personal or political advantage. I’m talking about the average person who is sincerely interested in figuring out how to logically assess arguments. All people with sincere interest should study formal logic, including modal logic.

For the average mammal we get to the psychology where the human brain rewards obfuscation with dopamine. IE, we are wired to lie to ourselves!

 

[pood]

That is a false statement. The brain doesn't work that way. People who are good at critical thinking are good at manipulation of facts to work in ones favor. The far right SCOTUS judges are not stupid. They are very intelligent and gifted at rearranging facts and truths to follow their narrative.

Critical thinking is important, but it isn't hallowed.

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest. They know their arguments are bullshit but they push them anyway for some personal or political advantage. I’m talking about the average person who is sincerely interested in figuring out how to logically assess arguments. All people with sincere interest should study formal logic, including modal logic.

For the average mammal we get to the psychology where the human brain rewards obfuscation with dopamine. IE, we are wired to lie to ourselves!

That may be, but a lot of people overcome that dire wiring.

 

[bilby]

(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real

(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:

(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.

(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.

I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.

Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....

...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?

... therefore God is unnatural.

 

[bilby]

That is a false statement. The brain doesn't work that way. People who are good at critical thinking are good at manipulation of facts to work in ones favor. The far right SCOTUS judges are not stupid. They are very intelligent and gifted at rearranging facts and truths to follow their narrative.

Critical thinking is important, but it isn't hallowed.

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest. They know their arguments are bullshit but they push them anyway for some personal or political advantage. I’m talking about the average person who is sincerely interested in figuring out how to logically assess arguments. All people with sincere interest should study formal logic, including modal logic.

For the average mammal we get to the psychology where the human brain rewards obfuscation with dopamine. IE, we are wired to lie to ourselves!

That may be, but a lot of people overcome that dire wiring.

I expect you feel good about having reached that conclusion, right?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?

Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

Let's call it valid bullshit. There's probably some latin phrase describing a statement that is valid but worthless.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest.

I think to make sense of the human condition you must first accept that there are no dishonest people. Humans are the same as other species.

 

[pood]

Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?

Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

Let's call it valid bullshit. There's probably some latin phrase describing a statement that is valid but worthless.

An argument is worthless either if it is invalid, or if it is valid but unsound.

 

[Wiploc]

Did you define "nature"?

Or begin or universe or god?

 

[Wiploc]

Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?

Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.

Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.

Let's call it valid bullshit. There's probably some latin phrase describing a statement that is valid but worthless.

Statements can be true. They can't be valid.
Arguments can be valid. They can't be true. The closest an argument can come to being true is to be sound.

 

[Wiploc]

Such people you are talking about may indeed be good at logic and critical thinking, but they are dishonest.

I think to make sense of the human condition you must first accept that there are no dishonest people. Humans are the same as other species.

We can't understand unless we accept falsehoods as true?

 

[Wiploc]

Keep in mind that if one wishes to argue that God created the universe, one must first provide an argument that God exists. Since there is of course zero empirical evidence for a god or gods, this is a bit tricky to say the least. Attempts to argue God into existence by logic alone go back at least to St. Anselm and his Ontological Argument. Kurt Gödel in the 20th century offered a modal logical update on the Ontological Argument, probably the best attempt ever made at this forlorn endeavor.

I haven't read Godel's version, but I read Plantinga's. It's not sound or valid. The only way in which it is better than other theist arguments is that--because of its length--it takes longer to refute.