Therefore, there is a god

[Cheerful Charlie]

If there is a God, God will answer prayers.
If I do not pray to this God, this God still exists.

The problem is, God does not answer prayers. Many children in pediatric cancer wards die despite fervent prayers from grieving parents for example. Despite assurances such as in Mark 16:15 prayer can cure illness. God's existence is called into question here.

 

[phands]

Prayer has zero effect. It's just mental masturbation.

 

[skepticalbip]

If there is a God, God will answer prayers.
If I do not pray to this God, this God still exists.

The problem is, God does not answer prayers. Many children in pediatric cancer wards die despite fervent prayers from grieving parents for example. Despite assurances such as in Mark 16:15 prayer can cure illness. God's existence is called into question here.

I think you are saying that Mark was wrong. If there was a god then he obviously doesn't give a fuck about people.

 

[skepticalbip]

Prayer has zero effect. It's just mental masturbation.

Well, there is always the placebo effect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

In summation I am compelled to proclaim


Therefore there is a dog.

 

[phands]

Prayer has zero effect. It's just mental masturbation.

Well, there is always the placebo effect.

In all the proper studies ever done (i.e not done by religious liars), prayer has been shown to be indistinguishable from Placebo.....in other words prayer doesn't have any effect over doing nothing.

 

[OLDMAN]

If you believe in God, then God exists. Can't argue with that, but wouldn't the opposite be true?

 

[WAB]

Prayer has zero effect. It's just mental masturbation.

Well, there is always the placebo effect.

In all the proper studies ever done (i.e not done by religious liars), prayer has been shown to be indistinguishable from Placebo.....in other words prayer doesn't have any effect over doing nothing.

Even if prayer causes nothing to happen, causes no change in events, it no doubt makes people "feel" better about things. Everytime a hurricane comes along (just to stay topical), the faithful pray, and it causes them comfort (I imagine), and perhaps allows them to feel that they are doing something proactive, rather than nothing.

In my experience, a plea for prayer means as much to a religious person as a plea for voter turn-out, ie, if you don't join in the prayers, you must not care.

But I'm not arguing that prayer has any change or affect on events. I agree with you about that.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If there is a God, God will answer prayers.
If I do not pray to this God, this God still exists.

The problem is, God does not answer prayers. Many children in pediatric cancer wards die despite fervent prayers from grieving parents for example. Despite assurances such as in Mark 16:15 prayer can cure illness. God's existence is called into question here.

I think you are saying that Mark was wrong. If there was a god then he obviously doesn't give a fuck about people.

The problem is, the Bible in both the OT and NT explicitly claims god cares, that God is good, compassionate, merciful, just and fair. He loves us, "For God so loved the world....". This God who is also all powerful, omnipotent doesn't seem to be any of those things.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you believe in God, then God exists. Can't argue with that, but wouldn't the opposite be true?

This thing called god would be as real as my pet dragon, and less real than my security blanket.

And why aren't there any stuffed god toys like stuffed animals?

 

[skepticalbip]

If you believe in God, then God exists. Can't argue with that, but wouldn't the opposite be true?

This thing called god would be as real as my pet dragon, and less real than my security blanket.

And why aren't there any stuffed god toys like stuffed animals?

There are. The Abrahamic religions prohibit images (I dunno why Jesus gets a pass though) but there are stuffed dolls of gods in other religions. For example here's a stuffed Krishna doll.





ETA:
That made me wonder if there were stuffed Jesus dolls so a quick google indicates that there are. Here's one:

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That Jesus doll looks kinda cuddly. Maybe I'll order one, looks like it has the right material, soft and squishy.

The Krishna doll looks like it birthed a cookie or something worse.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is that meant to be his discus?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is that meant to be his discus?

I think it's his shield.

If you read the Bible carefully, you'll see that Jesus is really nothing more than a cheap rip off of Captain America. That's why the Gospel of Mark talks about him fighting Iron Man just before the crucifixion.

 

[Bobinius]

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

Well this bit of propositional logic is completely confused. This is not a logical truth. This is not even valid. This is not an analytical truth. What it is, is a piece of not well formulated sequence of words. (a denial of a wff). Secondly, you make things even more obscure by denying a negative consequent.

The end of your phrase would like to be a part of Modus Tollens, denying the consequent, which is a valid inference. The implicit argument insinuated by your ending is this:

If God doesn't exist, then I pray.

I don't pray.

Therefore, God doesn't exist is false.

Therefore God does exist.

So, you seem to have the idea that since you do not pray, this falsifies the consequent of your first implication (not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered). Well, that's simply not the case. You are not proving that implication/conditional true by simply stating that you do not pray. You do not seem to understand what makes a conditional true or false. It cannot be just a simple premise. What makes an implication or condition of the form if P then Q false is 'P and ¬Q'. All the other case in the truth table make it true. You always need the conjunction of the two terms and their truth value in order to establish the truth of the conditional.

It is not the case that 'I don't pray' implies that 'not (if I pray, then my prayers will be answered)' is false. It does not imply anything in your argument. Because this appears only as an antecedent in a negation of a conditional. And denying the antecedent is a Logical Fallacy, as you surely know.

I find hard to understand the arrogance in your first post given the sum of confusions contained in your allegedly 'logical truth'. I think it can be better characterized as non-sensical rather than invalid, since it is not well formulated. And of course, your first premise is not true at all anyway. That's another discussion.

Cheers,

Bobinius

 

[ruby sparks]

Prayer has zero effect. It's just mental masturbation.

Well, there is always the placebo effect.

Prayer appears to have positive effects. They're just very very unlikely to have anything to do with the supernatural, such as being heard or answered by a god.

 

[Sarpedon]

I meant the thing that looks like a pie on the Krishna one. Krishna was supposed to have a discus.

I don't recall Jesus having a shield in the bible. But of course it seems my memory of the bible is not as good as I thought. He said for his disciples to sell their clothes to buy swords, but he apparently didn't own one himself. Jesus doesn't seem to have too many accessories, unlike most other god-men.

 

[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.



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

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

So the question is as follows:

Can you see intuitively whether it is a logical truth?

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

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

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

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

Thank you to all.
EB

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

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

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

First of all, thanks for being constructive in actually addressing the OP, which is in marked contrast will what most posters do these days.

I take your point here about the fluffiness of the formulation. So, here is an improved version:

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

I think this solves your point.

You're the first to bring that perfectly legitimate point, I think.

Also, I think this was the default interpretation anyway. So, formally, you were correct, but on the substance I think it makes no difference.

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

(1) ¬G ⊃ ¬(P ⊃ M)
(2) ¬P
(3) ∴ G.

Again, congratulations. I agree with your formal rendition of the argument. I think you're the third one to achieve this feat. Most posters can't even get to this point and yet will go on and on about me not understanding logic, yet without being able to argue their point at all. Rather pathetic.

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

Q.E.D.

???

You're saying that it's possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. This would indeed be a problem for my claim but unfortunately you stop short of demonstrating that this is indeed the case.

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

???

So, now your argument is that the premises are not necessarily true? I thought it was that the conclusion could be false while the premises were true?

So, I'm not sure which is our argument.

I suggest you start over with the improved version. As I see it, the premise "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered by a god" is always true in all (reasonable) interpretations.

Again, thanks for your efforts.

Please notice that I'm interested in intuition v. formal demonstration. I did both and I'm confident I got both right. I'm not saying your intuition is wrong but I'm looking for a convincing proof that it is correct.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

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

Not me, no. You should read more carefully what people actually say.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

This thread?

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

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





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


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

Look at the formal rendition of the OP's argument done by Grothendiecksbitch. It's now the third poster I think who gets to the same rendition and with me it makes four. But you're not in the four because you're rendition is different. So, either you argue why your rendition would be better, or you could try to admit you were wrong. You know, just what you say people should consider doing when it's obvious they're wrong.

Here it is for your convenience...

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

(1) ¬G ⊃ ¬(P ⊃ M)
(2) ¬P
(3) ∴ G.

See?
EB