Therefore, there is a god

[Speakpigeon]

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.

The logic of this argument is not dependent on the interpretation of the vocabulary. You yourself demonstrated this by substituting to the lexical vocabulary the mute variables S1, S2 and S3.

Given this, and as far as the logic of this argument is concerned, we don't have to assume anything not already in it. In fact, you can't add any new assumption. It would be like trying to argue that p or not p might not be true if I can find some way to slip in a new proposition in there, like (p or not p) and 2 = 3. So, you can slip in something like "god doesn't exist" or some such.

Once the logic of it is clear to you, then you have to deal with possible interpretations. On this particular point, which is important, since the logic of the argument doesn't depend on the interpretation of the vocabulary, you can take the word "god" as meaning anything you like, the argument will still be a logical truth. Now, if it's true for all interpretations, it's also true for all interpretations which we will find very annoying. We don't care that the argument can also prove there will be a tomorrow. What bothers us is that it also proves that there is a god in the usual sense of the word, or indeed in any conceivable sense of that word. What matters here is that we cannot dismiss any of these interpretations because it's there, like a pile of rubbish. Some rubbish won't bother you so much but the god one should draw your attention. This is in effect a conjunction of interpretations, all true, and so you have to pay attention to the most annoying of them because it's there and it won't go away unless you found what's really wrong with the logic of this argument, if anything at all.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The logic of this argument.....

What logic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I agree your argument here isn't a logical truth.

See? Your first post was lacking in specifics. There was little to argue about. Now we have the details of your reasoning, it's clear it's wrong. So, I repeat, your XYZ argument here is not a logical truth. That's right. And your reasoning is wrong.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I agree your argument here isn't a logical truth.

See? Your first post was lacking in specifics. There was little to argue about. Now we have the details of your reasoning, it's clear it's wrong. So, I repeat, your XYZ argument here is not a logical truth. That's right. And your reasoning is wrong.
EB

You're a waste of space.

Bye.

ps My XYZ argument (which is actually your argument) was not meant to constitute a logical truth. That was the point. Duh.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The logic of this argument.....

What logic?

Give me a list of logics I could pick and choose from.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The logic of this argument.....

What logic?

Give me a list of logics I could pick and choose from.
EB

No. You claim it's a logical truth. So how is it?

Never mid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree your argument here isn't a logical truth.

See? Your first post was lacking in specifics. There was little to argue about. Now we have the details of your reasoning, it's clear it's wrong. So, I repeat, your XYZ argument here is not a logical truth. That's right. And your reasoning is wrong.
EB

You're a waste of space.

Bye.

If you're not prepared to question your own assumptions it's just as well you give up early rather than late.

Still, you have been given all the elements you need. You're right your XYZ argument is not a logical truth. But mine there is a god argument is. So?

Also, somebody else did what you tried. So, you may want to look at what he has done.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Give me a list of logics I could pick and choose from.
EB

No. You claim it's a logical truth. So how is it?

Never mid.

Can't you give me a short list of the logics you had in mind?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

ps My XYZ argument (which is actually your argument) was not meant to constitute a logical truth. That was the point. Duh.

Do you think I didn't know that? Whoa! I'm so incredibly stupid these days. Sometimes it feels like I'm talking to you in French for all you seem to understand.

Still, look at your post here, it includes an assumption that's not true.

And I don't mean "duh"!
EB

 

[Rhea]

"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".

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.

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?)

 

[ideologyhunter]

Can this all be merged with Anselm's ontological masterpiece? And at that point I'll put on the loudest music I have and scream over it -- because that would be logical.

 

[ruby sparks]

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 not X.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

Let X = not raining
Let Y = car sun roof closed
Let Z = car seats get wet from rain

What you have is :

1. If it's not raining and my car sun roof is closed then my car seats won't get wet from the rain.

So far so good.

But....

2. If my car sun roof is not closed then it's raining.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Winner of this month's most confused statement.

Also inaccurate, since a logical truth is not necessarily a tautology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Winner of this month's most confused statement.

Also inaccurate, since a logical truth is not necessarily a tautology.

What's confused here is your attribution of this post to Rhea.

My statement is not confused. Don't mix up how you feel about it with what it is in actual fact.

I grant you that a logical truth is not exactly a tautology but that would depend on who you're talking to and you'll have to show how that could be relevant here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

"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".

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.

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.

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".

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

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 not X.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

Let X = not raining
Let Y = car sun roof closed
Let Z = car seats get wet from rain

What you have is :

1. If it's not raining and my car sun roof is closed then my car seats won't get wet from the rain.

So far so good.

But....

2. If my car sun roof is not closed then it's raining.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

I already told you. You should really try to go back on what you have assumed in your previous post.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

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".

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

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 not X.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

Let X = not raining
Let Y = car sun roof closed
Let Z = car seats get wet from rain

What you have is :

1. If it's not raining and my car sun roof is closed then my car seats won't get wet from the rain.

So far so good.

But....

2. If my car sun roof is not closed then it's raining.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

I already told you. You should really try to go back on what you have assumed in your previous post.
EB

I cannot see a reason for doing that. At the very least, you should give me a good explanation as to why I should need to do that. Merely repeating to me that I should is not an explanation.

You could also tell me why the OP argument is logical.

 

[phands]

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 not X.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

Let X = not raining
Let Y = car sun roof closed
Let Z = car seats get wet from rain

What you have is :

1. If it's not raining and my car sun roof is closed then my car seats won't get wet from the rain.

So far so good.

But....

2. If my car sun roof is not closed then it's raining.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

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.

 

[Jobar]

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.

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.