Therefore, there is a god

[Angra Mainyu]

Wiploc,

I'm afraid that I'm not going to spend so much time on this anymore. I thought I had been more successful before. I will try to be brief, but meatspace is getting in the way, so I'd rather not participate much in this thread anymore.

If Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.​

That is true because Speakpigeon does not pray. Also, the statement "If Speakpigeon prays, Elvis is alive, the Moon Landing was a hoax, and the Rapture will happen before 2019" is true.

it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.

That one is false, because Speakpigeon it is the denial of a true statement.

That means the same as this:


It is true that ..

No, "it is not true that" does not mean the same as "it is true that".

To get the value FALSE, we have to have the prayer and have it not answered.

Yes.

Therefore, the truth table for this statement ...

It is true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.

(sorry, it would take too long to learn how to format that to copy your format, and quoting would not work because I want to keep only those parts).
But no, you got it wrong. The statement "It is true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent." has exactly the same truth table as "If Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent".

So this statement ...


It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.


... can be restated this way:

Speakpigeon prays and the prayer is not answered by an omimax agent.

That is equivalent, yes.

Why does one version look true when the other doesn't?

It looks true to you because you're interpreting "if...then" in a way in which the equivalence does not hold. However, interpreted in that manner, the argument would not be valid.

I don't understand what was ambiguous about it. Can somebody explain that to me?

There are different conditionals. In this context, for the argument to be valid, the conditional is a material conditional (look it up, or take a look at Bomb#20's latest post, especially the part about the meaning of 'if'). The ordinary meaning is different, and that gives you the wrong impression.

 

[Bomb#20]

Now let's define "omnimax=omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect".

Premise 1''': If there is no omnimax agent, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.
Premise 2''': It is not the case that Speakpigeon prays.
Conclusion''': There is at least one omnimax agent.

The argument is valid, but it is not sound. Premise 1 is false.

But P1''' looks true.

P1 always looked dodgy, but P1''', I don't see how it could fail to be true.

It's true going by the usual meaning of "if" in English. But when you use the special technical meaning of "if" that can be represented with a truth table, it's false. That's why the OP argument as a whole is an equivocation fallacy.

Is the following statement true?

• If Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent."

Is that true? If an omnimax agent exists, it could be true and it could be false. But if an omnimax agent does not exist, then it has to be false.

It's false, going by English "if". It's true, going by truth-table "if".

Therefore, the truth table for this statement ...

• It is true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.

... has to look like this:

	Prays	Not Prays
Answered	F	F
Not Answered	T	F

I'm just feeling my way here. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you meant "It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays..."

If I haven't made a mistake, the meaning of this is same as the meaning of P1'''. But P1''' looks true and this doesn't.

Right. You're judging whether P1''' looks true by applying the English meaning of "if"; you converted it to "If there is no omnimax agent, then Speakpigeon prays and the prayer is not answered by an omnimax agent." by using a non-English dictionary's definition of "if". This is no more mysterious than the fact that two negatives make a positive in English but not in French. You just have to keep track of which language you're speaking. Truth tables aren't English.

Why does one version look true when the other doesn't? According to Bobinius--assuming I understand--the difference is that I have eliminated an ambiguous "if."

I don't understand what was ambiguous about it. Can somebody explain that to me?

Try this: Paradoxes of material implication

 

[Speakpigeon]

Anyway, thanks for trying. I guess we don't have the expert logician here who could clarify the issue.

We certainly do. Angra Mainyu hasn't made any logic errors so far.

He certainly did. He made one assumption that's wrong, if that can count as a logical error. Unfortunately, I won't tell you which, so it's going to be somewhat frustrating. I guess I somewhat mislead him in my comments and replies but he should have ignored that and questioned his wrong assumption. He should have considered the OP's argument for itself rather than ask me to specify this and that. I might still be able to come on this later and explain. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And thanks again for keeping to the point and for effectively addressing the OP.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now let's define "omnimax=omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect".

Premise 1''': If there is no omnimax agent, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.
Premise 2''': It is not the case that Speakpigeon prays.
Conclusion''': There is at least one omnimax agent.

The argument is valid, but it is not sound. Premise 1 is false.

But P1''' looks true.

P1 always looked dodgy, but P1''', I don't see how it could fail to be true.

I'm not arguing with you--I've been wrong plenty already in this thread--I'm just reasoning aloud.

Is the following statement true?

• If Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent."

Is that true? If an omnimax agent exists, it could be true and it could be false. But if an omnimax agent does not exist, then it has to be false.

But ... you're saying I'm wrong about that. And at this point I have to trust you more than I trust me, which is really weird and frustrating. And P1''' still really looks like a true statement.

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 are not arguing from logic, they are arguing from a method of logic. I hope everyone here will appreciate that the distinction is crucial. There is just one logic but there are many methods of logic. The method of logic Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 are arguing from is certainly the de facto standard for mathematicians but while it's presented as a method of logic it certainly does not capture logic itself. It's even funny to read books on "logic", in effect books on this de facto standard method of logic, and witness how invariably the author goes into the minute details of the method itself, often also goes into great details to explain the linguistic forms of logical arguments, and yet fails to do the most important thing which would be to justify this de facto standard method of logic as properly expressing logic. Compare this with the fact it's rather easy to find shitload of scientists who are only too happy to explain why the scientific method is the best method to understand the physical world (although they're mute as to why it would be the best way to understand the human mind). I've looked for such a justification of standard logic for quite some time now and I didn't find anything. In fact, authors, even the major ones, don't even address the issue or if they do it's invariably a fudge. Should be telling, but most people are not really looking.

You will also appreciate that it's absolutely certain that you won't in fact give up on interpreting as true similar sentences as "if there is no god then it's not true that if I pray then my prayer will be answered by a god". Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 won't either. it may seem they have but no. They are arguing here from this de facto standard method of logic, not from logic. They are arguing using logic, good logic, but starting from the wrong premise, which is that this de facto standard method of logic is logic. Replace "method of logic" with "arbitrary rules" and you'll get the situation right.

Sorry I can't explain the full picture but I had to tell you you were right.

Well, for this bit only, though. The rest of your post is confused and wrong.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Anyway, thanks for trying. I guess we don't have the expert logician here who could clarify the issue.

We certainly do. Angra Mainyu hasn't made any logic errors so far.

He certainly did. He made one assumption that's wrong, if that can count as a logical error. Unfortunately, I won't tell you which, so it's going to be somewhat frustrating. I guess I somewhat mislead him in my comments and replies but he should have ignored that and questioned his wrong assumption. He should have considered the OP's argument for itself rather than ask me to specify this and that. I might still be able to come on this later and explain. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And thanks again for keeping to the point and for effectively addressing the OP.
EB

No, I did not make any logical errors. A mistaken assumption would not be a logical error. But still, since you claim I made a mistaken assumption, I would ask you to support the claim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Now let's define "omnimax=omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect".

Premise 1''': If there is no omnimax agent, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent.
Premise 2''': It is not the case that Speakpigeon prays.
Conclusion''': There is at least one omnimax agent.

The argument is valid, but it is not sound. Premise 1 is false.

But P1''' looks true.

P1 always looked dodgy, but P1''', I don't see how it could fail to be true.

I'm not arguing with you--I've been wrong plenty already in this thread--I'm just reasoning aloud.

Is the following statement true?

• If Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered by an omnimax agent."

Is that true? If an omnimax agent exists, it could be true and it could be false. But if an omnimax agent does not exist, then it has to be false.

But ... you're saying I'm wrong about that. And at this point I have to trust you more than I trust me, which is really weird and frustrating. And P1''' still really looks like a true statement.

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 are not arguing from logic, they are arguing from a method of logic. I hope everyone here will appreciate that the distinction is crucial. There is just one logic but there are many methods of logic. The method of logic Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 are arguing from is certainly the de facto standard for mathematicians but while it's presented as a method of logic it certainly does not capture logic itself. It's even funny to read books on "logic", in effect books on this de facto standard method of logic, and witness how invariably the author goes into the minute details of the method itself, often also goes into great details to explain the linguistic forms of logical arguments, and yet fails to do the most important thing which would be to justify this de facto standard method of logic as properly expressing logic. Compare this with the fact it's rather easy to find shitload of scientists who are only too happy to explain why the scientific method is the best method to understand the physical world (although they're mute as to why it would be the best way to understand the human mind). I've looked for such a justification of standard logic for quite some time now and I didn't find anything. In fact, authors, even the major ones, don't even address the issue or if they do it's invariably a fudge. Should be telling, but most people are not really looking.

You will also appreciate that it's absolutely certain that you won't in fact give up on interpreting as true similar sentences as "if there is no god then it's not true that if I pray then my prayer will be answered by a god". Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20 won't either. it may seem they have but no. They are arguing here from this de facto standard method of logic, not from logic. They are arguing using logic, good logic, but starting from the wrong premise, which is that this de facto standard method of logic is logic. Replace "method of logic" with "arbitrary rules" and you'll get the situation right.

Sorry I can't explain the full picture but I had to tell you you were right.

Well, for this bit only, though. The rest of your post is confused and wrong.
EB

So, you're saying that we're arguing from arbitrary rules. You are of course mistaken, but both Bomb#20 and I have explained to you very carefully why your OP argument fails. If you consider the truth table rules arbitrary (which would be surprising, given their usefulness, but leaving that aside), that would not change the fact that we have explaining why your argument fails, not by applying arbitrary rules, but by explaining why you were applying them improperly (arbitrary or not).

 

[Speakpigeon]

He certainly did. He made one assumption that's wrong, if that can count as a logical error. Unfortunately, I won't tell you which, so it's going to be somewhat frustrating. I guess I somewhat mislead him in my comments and replies but he should have ignored that and questioned his wrong assumption. He should have considered the OP's argument for itself rather than ask me to specify this and that. I might still be able to come on this later and explain. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And thanks again for keeping to the point and for effectively addressing the OP.
EB

No, I did not make any logical errors. A mistaken assumption would not be a logical error. But still, since you claim I made a mistaken assumption, I would ask you to support the claim.

Sorry, it wasn't a claim I'm prepared to defend and argue. I was merely expressing my belief and would be happy to admit I can't prove it if you insisted.

Still, it's certainly a special case of logical error. Maybe it should be called a meta-logical error. You assumed you could dismiss the first premise of the argument on the basis of a mistaken application of the rules relative to the implication. Now, we all know the premise is true and yet you are claiming that your rule implies the premise is false instead of inferring that either your rule is false or somehow it doesn't imply that the premise is false as you believe. Sorry, I can't be more specific but you are definitely missing a crucial point.

Still, given I can't explain myself properly, I'd be happy to admit I just made this up if you insisted but that would be a shame. I would rather that you take seriously what I suggest.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, you're saying that we're arguing from arbitrary rules. You are of course mistaken, but both Bomb#20 and I have explained to you very carefully why your OP argument fails. If you consider the truth table rules arbitrary (which would be surprising, given their usefulness, but leaving that aside), that would not change the fact that we have explaining why your argument fails, not by applying arbitrary rules, but by explaining why you were applying them improperly (arbitrary or not).

These rules are not entirely arbitrary in that mathematicians have considered the various possibilities open to them given a certain assumption and dismissed all but one. Good job. Now, look at the assumption... Oops, it's arbitrary. Oh, well, that's too bad but there's nothing we can do about that... So, in effect the rules are arbitrary. And I don't know of any mathematician, logician or philosopher who managed to justify this assumption with respect to logic itself or acknowledged that they couldn't do it, although some have suggested as much.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

I've had all the insults from you that I want to put up with.

I won't talk to you; please don't talk to me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

I've had all the insults from you that I want to put up with.

I won't talk to you; please don't talk to me.

???

How's that an insult?! I was saying you're correct... Read again.

Also, please quote me insulting you. I'm sure I didn't and that whatever I may have said you didn't like would have been perfectly justified in the context. You already made several similar claims about what I said and you still haven't bothered to justify them even though I called on you to do it.

Whatever you claim about people, you should provide the relevant quote. That's the civil way to do it. If you can't bother, then don't come complaining.

If you can't live with my comments, just ignore me. That's easy enough to do.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

I've had all the insults from you that I want to put up with.

I won't talk to you; please don't talk to me.

???

How's that an insult?! I was saying you're correct... Read again.

Also, please quote me insulting you. I'm sure I didn't and that whatever I may have said you didn't like would have been perfectly justified in the context.

Here ya go...

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

That's an insult, and not at all justified in context. Wiploc is actually quite a good listener. You were the first to go negative.

Whatever you claim about people, you should provide the relevant quote. That's the civil way to do it. If you can't bother, then don't come complaining.

Words to live by. You didn't provide a relevant quote that showed Wiploc wouldn't ever listen.

 

[Speakpigeon]

???

How's that an insult?! I was saying you're correct... Read again.

Also, please quote me insulting you. I'm sure I didn't and that whatever I may have said you didn't like would have been perfectly justified in the context.

Here ya go...

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

That's an insult

You call that "an insult"?! Is that for real?!

Well, then I don't think we're speaking the same language, here. Me, I speak English. What's yours?

, and not at all justified in context.

My repartie was absolutely spot on. Here is the post I was replying to:

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.

You call that being a good listener? No me.

You were the first to go negative.

You must be kidding. Look here again what the post I was replying to contains:

Look around, it's just you.
You are making a false claim in the teeth of the evidence.
Your claim is obviously false.
Now in case the problem isn't obvious to you, here's another example.

That's not "negative" enough for you?

And all I replied was, ah, well, you won't ever listen, anyway. Sure, very, very insulting.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion. That's instructional.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry I cannot not tell you you're absolutely correct. There is just one logic to it and you're right about it.

I've had all the insults from you that I want to put up with.

I won't talk to you; please don't talk to me.

You call that being a "good listener"? Me, all I see is somebody who posts a reply before he has understood what he is replying to.

I also asked him several times to justify his claims about my posts. To no avail. Is that being a "good listener"?

And since he says now he finds the first premise looks true, he should also logically accept the argument is sound.And yet, he claimed I was making a claim that was obviously false!!!

I guess he's such a good listener he does't have the time to even listen to himself.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Here ya go...

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

That's an insult

You call that "an insult"?! Is that for real?!

Well, then I don't think we're speaking the same language, here. Me, I speak English. What's yours?

It was a personal comment; it was disparaging; you don't have evidence for it. If you think "insult" doesn't fit, that's between you and your idiolect.

, and not at all justified in context.

My repartie was absolutely spot on. Here is the post I was replying to:

You call that being a good listener? No me.

"Good listener" does not mean "person who agrees with you". "Good listener" does not mean "person who makes no mistakes". Yes, he's a good listener. Read his exchange with Angra Mainyu for a demonstration of his listening skills.

You were the first to go negative.

You must be kidding. Look here again what the post I was replying to contains:

Look around, it's just you.
You are making a false claim in the teeth of the evidence.
Your claim is obviously false.
Now in case the problem isn't obvious to you, here's another example.

That's not "negative" enough for you?

And all I replied was, ah, well, you won't ever listen, anyway. Sure, very, very insulting.

Do you not understand the difference between going after the post and going after the poster? You went negative about him before he went negative about you.

And since he says now he finds the first premise looks true, he should also logically accept the argument is sound.And yet, he claimed I was making a claim that was obviously false!!!

Keep in mind that your argument contains an equivocation fallacy. So when people say the first premise looks true, keep in mind they may mean it looks true going by the vernacular meaning of "if". And when they say the premises imply the conclusion, keep in mind they may mean it's valid going by the technical truth-table definition of "if". If they say both, that doesn't make them inconsistent; that makes them struggling to deal with your error.

You made several statements that are obviously false, starting with your very first one:

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

Earlier, you were at pains to distinguish between logic and a method of logic. It's a method of logic that seems to prove there's a god; it's not logic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Also, I don't see there's any room for the kind of "counterfactual" interpretation of the truth table I would be guilty of according to you and Bomb#20.

I didn't say you were guilty of a counterfactual interpretation of the truth table. I don't know what it would even mean to interpret a truth table counterfactually. I said you were applying a counterfactual interpretation of the word "if".

All I do is look at the truth table and the fact that the two premises look true (and I'm sure they look true to most people). I think that's all there is to it. Prove me wrong if you can.
EB

"If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered".

You don't pray, and your prayers will not be answered. Therefore, if all you did were look at the truth table, then you would evaluate "if I pray, my prayers will be answered" by looking at the false/false line in the "if" truth table, observing that that line says "true", substitute "true" in, and thus understand your premise to claim "If there is no god, then true is not true.". You would not find that premise intuitively compelling. Since you do find your first premise intuitively compelling, it follows that you aren't looking at the truth table to figure out what it means. That's the equivocation fallacy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Still, it's certainly a special case of logical error. Maybe it should be called a meta-logical error. You assumed you could dismiss the first premise of the argument on the basis of a mistaken application of the rules relative to the implication. Now, we all know the premise is true and yet you are claiming that your rule implies the premise is false instead of inferring that either your rule is false or somehow it doesn't imply that the premise is false as you believe. Sorry, I can't be more specific but you are definitely missing a crucial point.

Actually, you have no good reason whatsoever to even suspect that the first premise is true, as long as you are not equivocating, but I pointing out I was assuming for the sake of the argument that you were not equivocating, even though it was very likely that you were (as Bomb#20 has explained). That is a proper assumption to make when addressing your argument, especially when I point out that I'm making them. But moreover, I did point out that the assessment that you have no good reason whatsoever to even suspect that the first premise is true, is based on an interpretation of the conditionals in it in the sense of material conditional. If you interpret them (or at least one of them) in another sense of 'if', then when you apply the truth tables, you equivocate.

So, you're saying that we're arguing from arbitrary rules. You are of course mistaken, but both Bomb#20 and I have explained to you very carefully why your OP argument fails. If you consider the truth table rules arbitrary (which would be surprising, given their usefulness, but leaving that aside), that would not change the fact that we have explaining why your argument fails, not by applying arbitrary rules, but by explaining why you were applying them improperly (arbitrary or not).

These rules are not entirely arbitrary in that mathematicians have considered the various possibilities open to them given a certain assumption and dismissed all but one. Good job. Now, look at the assumption... Oops, it's arbitrary. Oh, well, that's too bad but there's nothing we can do about that... So, in effect the rules are arbitrary. And I don't know of any mathematician, logician or philosopher who managed to justify this assumption with respect to logic itself or acknowledged that they couldn't do it, although some have suggested as much.
EB

If the rules used by mathematicians are arbitrary, how come math is so effective when applied to predicting what's going to happen in the world around us? Take a look at physics, and the technology around us. If you came up with any arbitrary rules you might want to make up, do you think they are likely to work?

 

[Bomb#20]

So, all I have so far is that an argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. Which, according to me at least, seems to fit the OP's argument.

Still, in light of Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20's reasoning, I'm open to any suggestion as to what the definition of soundness should be, if anyone has a suggestion, that is. Be aware that any such would need to be algorithmically operational and preserve logical laws such as the transitivity of the implication for example.
EB

The definition of soundness is fine. An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. Maybe this will help: there are two different OP arguments under discussion in this thread.

Argument 1:

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

Argument 2:

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

Argument 1 is unsound. Its premises are true but it is invalid.

Argument 2 is unsound. It is valid but one of its premises is false.

Some of the comments people have made about your argument are criticisms of argument 1; some are criticisms of argument 2. Since "if" is sometimes used in English to mean counterfactual-if and sometimes to mean material-if, it isn't clear which you meant. (Or perhaps you meant yet another variety of "if". Natural languages are flexible; "if" has more than two meanings.)

I said you were applying a counterfactual interpretation of the word "if"; I should perhaps clarify that by "counterfactual" I did not mean "wrong". "If" is used in English to talk about counterfactual situations, situations contrary to fact. "If I pray, my prayers will be answered." is a counterfactual because you don't pray, so its "I pray" antecedent is contrary to fact. Calling the "if" a "counterfactual-if" doesn't mean you made a claim contrary to fact.

Counterfactuals are a tool English provides to let us talk about causality. "If I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "Praying causes prayer-answering" in vernacular English. "It is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "Praying doesn't cause prayer-answering". "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "If there is no god, then praying doesn't cause prayer-answering". That's why your first premise is so intuitively acceptable to nearly everyone. That's also why it's a mistake to try to analyze it with truth tables -- it's a statement about causality. There's no causality in a truth table -- no assertion as to why any particular line in the table is true or false. Causality is a concept simply beyond the truth table language's ability to express.

 

[Wiploc]

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

Emphasis added. That was post #1

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

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

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

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.

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

You're just wasting your own life.

Rather pathetic. Shows you in the wrong kind of light, I think.

Most posters ... Rather pathetic.

You are impotent.

In other words, since you're incapable of proving the logic wrong, you go for second best and go into blah-blah-blah. Well, your blah-blah-blah isn't going to convinced me. I'm not sensitive to blah-blah-blah.

On the substance of what you say here, your claim that the conclusion of the argument conflicts with the real world is really just pathetic. It sure conflicts with your opinion about the existence or otherwise of any god. Your opinion about the real world. Sure, you think there isn't any god and from there you go on claiming that it's a fact of the real world that there is no god. Pretty bad rhetoric , I would say.

Anyway, thanks for trying. I guess we don't have the expert logician here who could clarify the issue. It should be said that the truth table of the argument is quite simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it says that there is a god. We have to live with that. Personally, it's not a problem. I know the answer. Those who should worry are those who can't stomach that logic should prove that there is a god but are unable to explain why that's not true. If I was in your position, I would worry.

So, it seems to me that what you are doing here is pick and choose the parts of the truth table that suits your preconceptions or your intuition.

...

They certainly look intuitively true to me and I suspect they do to us all.

...

But it looks to me like you've just made up a new procedure to deal with truth tables to fit your preconceptions.

If you read something else into it, then you should perhaps look yourself in the mirror to find why.

I take it the question is somewhat beyond your pay grade.

One delusional dude tried it but gave up.

So, I guess I'll need to have Angra Mainyu around to look after me each time I post a new thread and get abuse from all the uncouth of this forum. That's a hell of a job for a destructive spirit.

I guess he's such a good listener he does't have the time to even listen to himself.

Well, then I don't think we're speaking the same language, here. Me, I speak English. What's yours?

...

You call that being a good listener? No me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Emphasis added. That was post #1

And?

As a general point, it bothers me a lot that you should feel it's just OK to quote me without being civil enough to articulate your point. So I guess we're all left to our own devices to interpret your cryptic message. This is a forum, you know. You're supposed to use words to explain your mind. I shouldn't have to just try and guess.

On the specifics, I can't see how you could reasonably complain about the bit you quoted here. Maybe this is why you abstain from explaining your complaint, because you can't do it in any reasonable way. Still, I have to ask you to try it. I don't see why I should have to guess what you may mean. I had to ask you already twice to justify your comments you did on my posts without quoting the relevant bits. To no avail. Here, you do something just as bad. You quote without articulating your mind. Well? You think it's OK? Not me.

So, again, I can't see how you could reasonably complain about the bit you quoted. Now it's up to you to explain yourself. If you can't bother to do that, then please abstain altogether.

For the rest of your post, I'm not going to go through the thread to see which of my posts you quote were about you. I'm pretty sure most weren't. So, I'm not in a situation to see whether you have a good reason to complain. So, again, it's up to you to see if you can bother to articulate your complaint.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, all I have so far is that an argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. Which, according to me at least, seems to fit the OP's argument.

Still, in light of Angra Mainyu and Bomb#20's reasoning, I'm open to any suggestion as to what the definition of soundness should be, if anyone has a suggestion, that is. Be aware that any such would need to be algorithmically operational and preserve logical laws such as the transitivity of the implication for example.
EB

The definition of soundness is fine. An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. Maybe this will help: there are two different OP arguments under discussion in this thread.

Argument 1:

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

Argument 2:

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

Argument 1 is unsound. Its premises are true but it is invalid.

Argument 2 is unsound. It is valid but one of its premises is false.

Some of the comments people have made about your argument are criticisms of argument 1; some are criticisms of argument 2. Since "if" is sometimes used in English to mean counterfactual-if and sometimes to mean material-if, it isn't clear which you meant. (Or perhaps you meant yet another variety of "if". Natural languages are flexible; "if" has more than two meanings.)

I said you were applying a counterfactual interpretation of the word "if"; I should perhaps clarify that by "counterfactual" I did not mean "wrong". "If" is used in English to talk about counterfactual situations, situations contrary to fact. "If I pray, my prayers will be answered." is a counterfactual because you don't pray, so its "I pray" antecedent is contrary to fact. Calling the "if" a "counterfactual-if" doesn't mean you made a claim contrary to fact.

Counterfactuals are a tool English provides to let us talk about causality. "If I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "Praying causes prayer-answering" in vernacular English. "It is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "Praying doesn't cause prayer-answering". "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." is roughly equivalent to "If there is no god, then praying doesn't cause prayer-answering". That's why your first premise is so intuitively acceptable to nearly everyone. That's also why it's a mistake to try to analyze it with truth tables -- it's a statement about causality. There's no causality in a truth table -- no assertion as to why any particular line in the table is true or false. Causality is a concept simply beyond the truth table language's ability to express.

I don't think this makes sense. The material implication is defined using a truth table based on all logical cases, i.e. all possible combinations of truth values for the antecedent and the consequent. These different cases are obviously contradictory to each other. In effect, they are counterfactual of each other. If one is true, then the others are all false. An implication which is valid may be true for several of these cases and therefore for cases that are contradictory to each other, so that only one case is possibly true, making the other counterfactual. The implication (A ∧ B) → (A ∨ B) is always valid whatever A and B may mean and there are four logical cases for A and B, all contradictory to each other, and three cases for the combination of truth values for (A ∧ B) and (A ∨ B), again all contradictory to each other. Say A and B are both false, making both (A ∧ B) and (A ∨ B) false, then the two cases where (A ∧ B) is false and (A ∨ B) true and both (A ∧ B) and (A ∨ B) are true would be counterfactual. Yet, they are taking into account to decide on the validity of the implication (A ∧ B) → (A ∨ B). So, I don't see how my interpretation the implication could have anything to do with counterfactual propositions in a way which wouldn't come with the definition of the validity of the implication.

As to the premises, given that I take them as true, I also don't see where any counterfactual interpretation could possibly come in. I also base my claim that this argument is sound on the basis that the implication is valid and the two premises true. So, again, no counterfactual needed outside what is already part and parcel of the definition of the validity of the implication.

And again, you're both missing a crucial point. So, just repeating your argument about some counterfactual interpretation is not necessary. I understood your point. We just disagree about that and i don't find you explanation convincing.
EB