Therefore, there is a god

[Speakpigeon]

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

 

[phands]

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

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Ya, that doesn't make sense. It seems to me like you're saying that if a statement is false then the opposite of that statement is therefore true. The opposite could be false as well.

Not having a god answer the prayers of people who pray says nothing about those who don't pray. It provides no premise whatsoever to get to your "therefore".

Here's a rewording of your example:

"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".

When you don't use it to fill your tank, you have no information about what's in the gas can. There might be gasoline in there, there might be water in there, it might be empty, etc. You haven't taken any steps at all to find out one way or the other.

 

[Rhea]

In science, I might say,

If there is no reaction between these chemicals, then when I add these ingredients, nothing will happen.
I would be fool to then claim, "If I don't add these two chemicals together, that proves they will react."

But that appears to be what you are doing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Non sequitur. If you don't pray no prayer can be answered. Of course those who do pray should have prayers answered if God answers prayers. Scientific tests to establish that theory have failed. Prayers for hospital patients mean to test that proposition failed to show prayers are answered.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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 you insist.

I don't think the word "god" is precise enough to be used in this context (and I'm not sure there is any context in which it is), so I would say: "what's a god?" But let's say that "god" means an omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) agent (if you prefer to use another concept, pick your choice, but it's not relevant to the point I'm going to make).

Let

S1:= There is x such that x is a god.
S2:= There is z such that z is a prayer said by Speakpigeon.
S3:= There is y, z such that y is a god, z is a prayer by Speakpigeon, and y answers z.

Your argument (leaving aside the indexical reference to simplify, and trying to render the part about praying and prayers more easy to address; if you think it makes a difference, please let me know and I will adjust the reply) seems to be:

P1: ¬S1->¬(S2->S3).
P2: ¬S2.
C: S1.

Sure, that is valid. But I see no good reason to think P1 is true. We're talking about a material conditional here. In fact, if P2 is true, I would argue that P1 is false, and to show that, I would of course argue that there is no god!
Now, this is limited to the definition of "god" given above. If you prefer not to define "god", then I would go with "what's a god?", and ask for any argument supporting premise P1, given the fact that P2 is true.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you insist.

I don't think the word "god" is precise enough to be used in this context (and I'm not sure there is any context in which it is), so I would say: "what's a god?" But let's say that "god" means an omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) agent (if you prefer to use another concept, pick your choice, but it's not relevant to the point I'm going to make).

It is good enough that a god here be understood as whatever answers prayers and that we call "god". Good enough both for the purpose of doing logic here and as a proxy for whatever people call God that they think answers their prayers.

Let

S1:= There is x such that x is a god.
S2:= There is z such that z is a prayer said by Speakpigeon.
S3:= There is y, z such that y is a god, z is a prayer by Speakpigeon, and y answers z.

Your argument (leaving aside the indexical reference to simplify, and trying to render the part about praying and prayers more easy to address; if you think it makes a difference, please let me know and I will adjust the reply) seems to be:

P1: ¬S1->¬(S2->S3).
P2: ¬S2.
C: S1.

OK, all good. Good job!

Sure, that is valid.

Ah, now you're talking.

But I see no good reason to think P1 is true.

???

You see no reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if you pray then your prayers will be answered?!

Please take some more time to think about it...

We're talking about a material conditional here. In fact, if P2 is true, I would argue that P1 is false

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

, and to show that, I would of course argue that there is no god!

But P1 does assumes there is no god and still there are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true..

Now, this is limited to the definition of "god" given above. If you prefer not to define "god", then I would go with "what's a god?", and ask for any argument supporting premise P1, given the fact that P2 is true.

Whatever answers prayers and that we call "god" would do. With that assumption and two cases where both P1 and P2 are true, I'm sure all atheists should object.

Please, look again at the conjunction "P1 and P2".

Still, I'm not sure there's anything to argue about since you've admitted the thing is valid.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Ya, that doesn't make sense. It seems to me like you're saying that if a statement is false then the opposite of that statement is therefore true. The opposite could be false as well.

Not having a god answer the prayers of people who pray says nothing about those who don't pray. It provides no premise whatsoever to get to your "therefore".

Here's a rewording of your example:

"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".

When you don't use it to fill your tank, you have no information about what's in the gas can. There might be gasoline in there, there might be water in there, it might be empty, etc. You haven't taken any steps at all to find out one way or the other.

It's not me saying it's true. I'm just reporting. The thing is a logical truth, or a tautology in modern lingo, and that's it. The paradox doesn't rely on the semantics of the words used. It's true due to form, like "X or not X" is true whatever X may be.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Non sequitur. If you don't pray no prayer can be answered. Of course those who do pray should have prayers answered if God answers prayers. Scientific tests to establish that theory have failed. Prayers for hospital patients mean to test that proposition failed to show prayers are answered.

That there is a god follows from te premises. Not me saying so. Just a fact. And the premises are very, very reasonable. No reason all atheists in the world shouldn't sign for them.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

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

Well, then it should be piece of cake to explain. Could you please do that?
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?

If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is good enough that a god here be understood as whatever answers prayers and that we call "god". Good enough both for the purpose of doing logic here and as a proxy for whatever people call God that they think answers their prayers.

An alien running a simulation might answer prayers, and most people would not call it a god, but an alien. This may well increase the overall level of confusion, which is high already just because of the type of argument you're trying to make. But I'll assume for the sake of the argument that you're right, and in particular, I will assume for the sake of the argument that any agent that answers prayers is a god.

???

You see no reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if you pray then your prayers will be answered?!

I said no good reason. There is a reason, for those being confused by your argument - namely, their confusion.
And you're again obscuring what I had clarified with my rendering of the premises. It leads to confusion for most people.

Now to address your point with the confusing language and all, here's my reply (assume parenthesis if needed; I already gave a clear version, but you went back to the obscure one):

As long as Speakpigeon does not pray, in the sense of material implication, the statement "If Speakpigeon prays, then X" is true in virtue of being a conditional with a false antecedent, and for every X that makes grammatical sense in this context. Thus, again as long as the statement "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true, the statement "It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is false. Hence, the statement "If Y, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is a conditional with a false consequent, and as such, it is false unless Y is also false (and that holds for all Y that makes grammatical sense here). Again, remember I'm holding that "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true.
So, in particular (and as always, as long as the statement "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true), the statement "If there is no god, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered." is true if and only if there is a god. Given that I have no good reason to believe that there is a god, and given that I'm well aware of the fact that the statement "If there is no god, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered." is true if and only if there is a god (again, always holding true that Speakpigeon does not pray), obviously I see no good reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered.

The "???" in your statement (quoted above), and the use of italics in "You see no reason to think that " suggest that somehow you are surprised that I make such a statement, and that my statement is somehow controversial. It is not. What I'm saying is obvious. Well, it is obvious to me, but I think it is also obvious to you, so busted! (if you actually don't get what the problem is, sorry, I thought you were just pulling readers' legs; if you were actually pulling readers' legs as is my impression, well again busted! ).

Please take some more time to think about it...

Please, do not patronize me. I'm not one of the readers whose legs you can pull with this sort of argument.

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 (i.e., the antecedent is true because there is no god, and the consequent is false because it follows from ¬S2 that ¬(S2->S3) is false, as explained. Of course, that was under my definition of "god". Given that you reject the definition, I have no idea whether P1 is false. What's a god?

But P1 does assumes there is no god and still there are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true..

P1 on its own does not assume that there is no god (it's a material conditional; you stipulated that this is propositional logic); else, what are you saying? If you're using counterfactual conditional, please use subjunctive as required). But P1 and P2 together imply that there is a god. Hence, clearly, either there is a god, or P1 is false, or P2 is false. But P2 is true (I accept that you do not pray). Hence, either there is a god or P1 is false. Under my definition of "god", I would argue that there is no god, and thus that P1 is false (again, always assuming P2 is true).

Whatever answers prayers and that we call "god" would do.

I don't think there is anything I would call "god" other than perhaps God if he existed (i.e., an omnimax agent), and there are possible prayer-answerers that most people would not call "god". But whatever, I'm making the assumptions favorable to your case, since your main problem lies elsewhere.

With that assumption and two cases where both P1 and P2 are true, I'm sure all atheists should object.

Please, look again at the conjunction "P1 and P2".

Please, look again at my reply. And my new reply too.
I see no good reason to think P1 is true, granting that P2 is.

Still, I'm not sure there's anything to argue about since you've admitted the thing is valid.

Of course, I did not admit it's sound. In fact, I argued that it wasn't, though it was under another definition of "god". Under your concept (assuming for the sake of the argument that there is such a concept, that is), then I don't know whether it's sound. But I will argue that you have provided no good reason to even suspect that P1 is true (and obviously, clearly, transparently, given that P2 is true, P1 is true if and only if there is a god, so if you want to argue that P1 is true, you would have to argue independently that there is a god; statements like "???" or "Please take some more time to think about it..." will not do, and are out of place (I'm not the sort of reader you can confuse like that! I'm the one busting your leg-pulling. ).

 

[Wiploc]

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

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

Affirming the consequent innit?

Imagine a prosecutor arguing thusly: "If the defendant killed him, he would be dead. And he is dead, so the defendant killed him."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

Weak, weak, weak.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?

If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.

If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?

Sure, this one seems good to me but it's also a different statement from the one in the OP. I repeat it bellow for your convenience if you want to try and see where's the difference.

If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.

Sure, at least to the extent that people would make prayers and that those would be of a kind that once answered you could notice the difference. People make whatever prayers they like and not necessarily those you think they do.

Still, I guess you might be right. God willing, you would be able to try a little prayer of your own and check the result for yourself. Nothing to do with logic, that, just God willing.

Still, again, your statement here is very different from the one in the OP and the truth of one doesn't bear on the truth of the other.
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

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

Weak, weak, weak.

Weak? Sorry, this is a logical formula and it is either true or false, not weak or strong. This isn't a piece of rhetoric. It happens to be a logical truth and the conclusion that there is a god is in all appearances somewhat vexatious. I'm asking you how we could possibly do away with it.

To say it's weak it as good as saying logic itself is weak and that therefore we should not use it to reason or if we use it we will always reason weakly. Well, at least that's a thought but I don't think that's what you want to argue.

Your own example is good, congratulation, I think. Still, it's not going to sound problematic to anyone that there should be a tomorrow tomorrow. So, it doesn't compare on substance even if the logic seems the same at first glance.

You might have a point but it's not clear to me that you do. Not explicit enough.

So, weak or strong? Try some more or are you spent?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

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

Affirming the consequent innit?

Imagine a prosecutor arguing thusly: "If the defendant killed him, he would be dead. And he is dead, so the defendant killed him."

No, nothing in common obviously.

The sentence is a logical truth. There's no two ways about it unless you looked at your own assumptions.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The sentence is a logical truth.

Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The sentence is a logical truth.

Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?

How so exactly?

Intuition is fine but you have to explain what's wrong with this statement, if anything. It won't be good enough for you merely to make suggestions as to what might be wrong there. Anyone can do that and it doesn't look good.

I'm not saying your intuition is wrong but it's a fact that the statement is a logical truth (or tautology, in modern parlance). If you want to claim otherwise, which I would understand, you'll have to support your claim with something much more substantial than mere suggestions.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

Weak, weak, weak.

Yes, your spot on, your own "tomorrow" argument is really, really weak since nobody expects tomorrow not to come.

"There is a god" is clearly something else entirely. It's strong because the conclusion is startling, because it's counter-intuitive, at least to most people.

It's something to disagree with this argument on intuitive grounds, we can all do that, but it's something else entirely to identify the problem, if any.

So, obviously, you have your intuition about it, but just as clearly you can't argue your view. You don't even try, which is telling. So, definitely weak, weak, weak.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The sentence is a logical truth.

Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?

How so exactly?

Intuition is fine but you have to explain what's wrong with this statement, if anything. It won't be good enough for you merely to make suggestions as to what might be wrong there. Anyone can do that and it doesn't look good.

I'm not saying your intuition is wrong but it's a fact that the statement is a logical truth (or tautology, in modern parlance). If you want to claim otherwise, which I would understand, you'll have to support your claim with something much more substantial than mere suggestions.
EB

I haven't a clue what you're on about and I doubt you have either. The conclusion does not follow. The second part is a non-sequitur and the two statements together are arguably a fallacy (affirming the consequent). How much simpler can it be put? And since the second part is not a way of restating the first part, it's not a tautology either. And nor is logical truth necessarily a tautology, as you seem to imply. You're all over the shop.

Also, if you want to assert it's a logical truth, then you need to explain why or how it is. In fact as the thread starter and the person making the first claim (that it is a logical truth) the onus is arguably on you in the first instance.




Let X = no god
Let Y = pray
Let Z = prayer answered

What you have is :

1. If X and Y then not Z.
2. If not Y then X.

The second statement does not follow from the first.