One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved. Is this so?

Let us understand a proof to be a sound argument. Such an understanding fits with what is often suggested in Logic texts.

According to the logic texts, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and has only true premises. If that is so, then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God.

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.


This argument is valid (the conclusion follws from the premises). Taking up the role of the believer, I contend that the two premises are true. Hence, this is a sound argument for the existence of God. Since a sound argument is a proof, this is a proof that there is a God.

Butte Montana

edited to correct typos

i would say nice try, but its not. One of your premices is commicaly flawed.

Just because you put it in the form of syllogistic logic dosnt make it true. How do you get to the conclusion that "If something exists then there is a god?" this cant be used as a premice because there is nothing that can prove it.

also i think there are some nihilists floating around on the board, so your second premice "something exists" will probably also be called into question by somone else. why not try to proove that one too.

This would work if your premises were true, however the idea that "if something exists, then there must be a god" is tragically flawed.

Please, explain to us how this premise is both valid and true.

Ah, you've managed to hit upon one of the trivialities of logic. Valid arguments are very easy to come by. In fact for every statement, true or false, there's a valid argument that proves it. And if the statement is true, then there's a sound argument that proves it.

However, the mere fact that an argument is valid doesn't mean that it ought to be taken as convincing. Your argument is an example of this. It's validity is rhetorically worthless. Nobody ought to be convinced by your argument. It begs the question. Any argument that would support your premises would independently support the conclusion. Thus your argument cannot be seen as offering any proof in the rhetorical sense.

TO make the point clearer, you do have a proof in one very thins sense of the word "proof". However there are also proofs in the same sense that there is no god. What is wanted is a proof in the sense of something that is reasonably taken as convincing, not merely a valid argument whose premises will be accepted by people who already agree with the conclusion.

A proof that this town is Harrisburg.

1. This town is the Capital of Pennsylvania.
2. If this town is the Capital of Pennsylvania, then this town is Harrisburg.
-----
3. This town is Harrisburg.


i would say nice try, but its not. One of your premices is commicaly flawed.
Just because you put it in the form of syllogistic logic dosnt make it true. How do you get to the conclusion that "If something exists then there is a god?" this cant be used as a premice because there is nothing that can prove it. The proposition "If something exists, then there is a God" isn't a conclusion here. It is a premise in the argument.


also i think there are some nihilists floating around on the board, so your second premice "something exists" will probably also be called into question by somone else. why not try to proove that one too. Some nihilist might question premise 1 above. That doesn't call it into question, nor does it change the fact that it is a proof. The mere fact that someone questions something doesn't show anything does it?

This would work if your premises were true, however the idea that "if something exists, then there must be a god" is tragically flawed.

Please, explain to us how this premise is both valid and true. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the idea is "tragically flawed". Could you put your complaint in other words. I haven't said that the premise is valid (a logical truth) , unless you merely mean by "valid", "true". The premise is true in virtue of the facts ("How is this premise true?"); that is how the premises in the argument above are true.


Butte Montana

Ah, you've managed to hit upon one of the trivialities of logic. Valid arguments are very easy to come by. In fact for every statement, true or false, there's a valid argument that proves it. And if the statement is true, then there's a sound argument that proves it. You mean that for every statment, true or false, there is a valid argument that has it (the statment) as a conclusion. If by "proof" we mean sound argument, then it is not true that for every statment true or false, there is a proof for it.

However, the mere fact that an argument is valid doesn't mean that it ought to be taken as convincing. Your argument is an example of this. It's validity is rhetorically worthless. Nobody ought to be convinced by your argument. It begs the question. Any argument that would support your premises would independently support the conclusion. Thus your argument cannot be seen as offering any proof in the rhetorical sense. The argument is not question-begging if you "question-begging" you mean that it assumes what it is attempting to prove as a premise.

I am not sure why you think "Any argument that would suppport your premises would independently support the conclusion" is an objection, if that is how it is intended. Perhaps you could rephrase your objection.

TO make the point clearer, you do have a proof in one very thins sense of the word "proof". However there are also proofs in the same sense that there is no god. What is wanted is a proof in the sense of something that is reasonably taken as convincing, not merely a valid argument whose premises will be accepted by people who already agree with the conclusion. Once again, if we use "proof" to refer to sound arguments , but not unsound arguments, as I suggested in the opening post, then there are no proofs that there is no god.

If you want to put other conditions on proof, you may do so. Just tell us/me what they are. Do you want to suggest that sound arguments are proofs only if they are convincing? If so, at the very least, you will have to explain what you mean by "convincing".

Maybe I am just missing your main point(s).

Butte Montana

Originally posted by Butte Montana

Once again, if we use "proof" to refer to sound arguments , but not unsound arguments, as I suggested in the opening post, then there are no proofs that there is no god.

If you want to put other conditions on proof, you may do so. Just tell us/me what they are. Do you want to suggest that sound arguments are proofs only if they are convincing? If so, at the very least, you will have to explain what you mean by "convincing".

Maybe I am just missing your main point(s).

Butte Montana

If all we meant by "proof" was a sound argument, then nobody would care about proofs. You give me any true statement, however complicated, and I can produce a sound argument with that statement as a conclusion in very short order.

Proofs are interesting because they can take us from statements we already accept to statements that we don't already accept. Your proof doesn't do this.

That your proof begs the question is given away in part by your own justification of the premises. The ground you present is that you are a believer, someone who believes in god. So by your own admission, your reason for accepting the premises is that you already accept the conclusion. This means that the proof itself is doing no work. Furthermore is is highly unlikely that anyone would accept the premises unless they alread accepted the conclusion. If you think otherwise, then please provide an argument for the first premise that doesn't presuppose that god exists.

The situation here is similar to the Ontological Argument, particularly recent modal versions of it. The arguments are valid, and believers take them to be sound. However, no independent support can be mustered for the premises, and they are not self evident.

Originally posted by Butte Montana


The proposition "If something exists, then there is a God" isn't a conclusion here. It is a premise in the argument.


Some nihilist might question premise 1 above. That doesn't call it into question, nor does it change the fact that it is a proof. The mere fact that someone questions something doesn't show anything does it?



All premices are the conclusions of some other syllogism, your first premice isnt exactly self evedent, its got weird hidden assumptions. I was suggesting that you explain how you developed that as a valid premice.

As for the nihilists, i wasnt insinuating that they would find a flaw with premice 1, its premice 2 "Something exists" that they would have a problem with. And you only think thier questioning it dosnt matter because one hasnt come in raving and wailing and slobbering about "Man how can you know anything exists maaaaaaaaaaan?"

1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.

drnihili,


If all we meant by "proof" was a sound argument, then nobody would care about proofs.
You are free to explain what you mean by "proof". If you think that my concept of proof is in some way wrong-headed, please say why. It looks to me like you might be conflating two different notions-- What it takes to prove, and what it takes to convince some particular person.

You give me any true statement, however complicated, and I can produce a sound argument with that statement as a conclusion in very short order. What is this supposed to show?

Proofs are interesting because they can take us from statements we already accept to statements that we don't already accept. Is this a definition of "proof" or your notion of interesting proof .

That your proof begs the question is given away in part by your own justification of the premises. The ground you present is that you are a believer, someone who believes in god. So by your own admission, your reason for accepting the premises is that you already accept the conclusion. This is a bit wild! I haven't offered any justification, nor have I offered any ground, for either of the premises. I do maintain, here, that the premises are true. Your claim that my reason for accepting the premises is that I already accept the conclusion is a strange one, and I have no idea why you think that this is so. Would you maintain the same about my "Capital of Pennsylvania" argument?

This means that the proof itself is doing no work. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that anyone would accept the premises unless they alread accepted the conclusion. Even if this were true, it doesn't show that the argument isn't a proof, if sound arguments are proofs.

You might consider the distinction between "producing a proof" and "showing that a proof is a proof". It surely cannot be a condition on producing proofs that each premise must itself be proved, and each premise of each proof of each premise must be proved, and so on-- such a condition cannot be satisfied.


Butte Montana

edited to insert my in my first response above.

Nasor,

1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.

I am curious as to what this is supposed to show. Surely the fact that one can produce unsound arguments doesn't show that one cannot produce sound arguments. Surely it doesn't raise any question about my "God" argument, that it doesn't also raise about my "Pennsylvania" argument.

How about specifying what you think producing your argument (an argument that you know to be unsound) shows about my argument for the existence of God.

Butte Montana

LOL

'Ahem'....

While formally speaking, your logic is sound, and your argument therefore valid, you seem to be forgetting that validity has nothing to do with truth (sic).

By the by, your first premiss is not only an interesting discussion in of itself, but also highly entertaining.

glaucon,

While formally speaking, your logic is sound, and your argument therefore valid, you seem to be forgetting that validity has nothing to do with truth (sic). Could you be more specific, please? Exactly where does it seem to you that I have forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth? If, for example, I had maintained that the truth of the premises follows from the validity of the argument, one interpretation of your remark would be on target. But I haven't done that, and I don't think that.

Your post might be interpreted in the following way (part of the post, anyway).

1. If Butte Montana has forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth, then the argument that she has presented is unsound.

2. Butte Montana has forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth.
----
3. The argument that she has presented in unsound.


Help, Please!

Butte Montana

What I mean is simply this, and no more:

A believer may indeed offer your argument as a proof that there is a God. And the argument is indeed valid and sound. But, a sound argument is not necessarily a proof. At the best, one could say it forms a Conditional proof. What's important to remember here is that we're dealing with first-order propositional logic which, like most logical methods, is a Deductive method of reasoning. As we all know, deductive reason can never ADD anything to knowledge. Ergo.....
:-)

Butte,

If all you want for a proof is an argument that is valid and that a believer will contend is true, there's a much easier one.

There is a God.
--------------------
Therefore, There is a God.

This argument is equally as sound as the one you present.

The question is, why do you want a proof of the existce of God? Also, how will you respond to someone who does not accept your first premise?

On a separate note, I'm curious where you got the idea that "proof" meant "sound argument". I don't think I've ever seen it used that way.

drnihili,

Butte,

If all you want for a proof is an argument that is valid and that a believer will contend is true, there's a much easier one.

There is a God.
--------------------
Therefore, There is a God.

This argument is equally as sound as the one you present. This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it; mine is not question-begging in this sense.

We can add that as a condition on proof, if you like.

So, a proof is a sound argument that is not question-begging (in the sense of assuming as a premise, the conclusion of the argument). That's the spirit.

The question is, why do you want a proof of the existce of God? My opening post indicated why, didn't it. There are many who maintain that there are no proofs for the existence of God. So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken.

Also, how will you respond to someone who does not accept your first premise? I am not clear about the import of the question. How does someone's non-acceptance of the truth of the first premise affect its truth? Unless it does, the fact that a person does not accept is irrelevant to the status of my argument as a proof.

I will acknowledge, once again, that I have not demonstrated that this argument is a sound argument. But neither has anyone shown that it is not a sound argument. IF, in order to show that it is a proof (a sound argument) I have to show that the conditions on sound argument have been satisfied, then in order to show that it is not a proof, doesn't one have to show that (one or more of) the conditions are not satisfied. No one here has done that.

Butte Montana

Originally posted by Butte Montana
drnihili,

This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it; mine is not question-begging in this sense.

We can add that as a condition on proof, if you like.

So, a proof is a sound argument that is not question-begging (in the sense of assuming as a premise, the conclusion of the argument). That's the spirit.


The term you're looking for is "circular". Question begging arguments are a more general category. But why should we add a proviso that proofs be non-circular? Circularity is not a logical fallacy, it's a rhetorical one. Why should we accept a rhetorical restriction on the concept of proof? And if we are going to place rhetorical limits, why stop there?



My opening post indicated why, didn't it. There are many who maintain that there are no proofs for the existence of God. So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken.


No one has provided a reason to think yours is not a proof give your rather idiosyncratic definition. But even if your definition is granted, your conclusion that "these people seem to be mistaken" doesn't follow. At best you can conclude "these people have not demostrated that I am mistaken". In order to conclude that your detractors were mistaken, you would have to provide at least a prima facie argument that your proof was sound. But you haven't done that. You've asserted that it is sound, but haven't provided any reason for thinking it is.

Here are some more "proofs" that there is a god.

If I own a car, then there is a god.
I own a car.
-------------------------
There is a god

If there is no god, then the moon is made of cheese.
The moon is not made of cheese.
----------------------------------------------
There is a god

Either there is no god or Bill Gates is a pauper.
Bill Gates is not a pauper.
-----------------------------------------------
There is a god.

If anyone believes there is a god, then there is a god.
Someone believes there is a god.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is a god.

What is your assessment of these proofs?

drnihili
I could go on and on and on,
but tonight, I've got a headache.

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I am curious as to what this is supposed to show. Surely the fact that one can produce unsound arguments doesn't show that one cannot produce sound arguments. Surely it doesn't raise any question about my "God" argument, that it doesn't also raise about my "Pennsylvania" argument.

How about specifying what you think producing your argument (an argument that you know to be unsound) shows about my argument for the existence of God.Your 'proof' is unconvincing because it is based on the premise that if something exists then there must be a god, which is a premise that very few people would agree with. You can't logically conclude that if anything exists then god must also exists. If you believe that to be the case, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the positive claim, to prove it. But of course you can't.

My syllogism was intended to illustrate that you can prove anything if you start with a faulty premise.

drnihili,

Question begging arguments are a more general category. I know that "question-begging" is used by some to refer to a more general category-- that is why I qualified it.
But why should we add a proviso that proofs be non-circular? Circularity is not a logical fallacy, it's a rhetorical one. Why should we accept a rhetorical restriction on the concept of proof? And if we are going to place rhetorical limits, why stop there? I don't think we should. I thought that is what you might have been suggesting. I am perfectly happy to stick with the definition of "proof" as sound argument, in which case I would say that my proof is a non-question-begging one (non-circular one) and yours is.

We can start over, if you like, and I will rephrase the opening line using "non-circular proof".

Once again, if you want to qualify my proposal/definition of proof, by all means do so. You continue to complain about my definition, but you don't offer anything in its place. What do you think that those who maintain that "You can't prove that God exists" mean when they say this. I am sure that you have heard intelligent people say this. You may even think this yourself.
I assume that those who say "You can't prove that God exists" don't mean nothing more than "You can't convince me that God exists".




My opening post indicated why, didn't it. There are many who maintain that there are no proofs for the existence of God. So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken.

No one has provided a reason to think yours is not a proof give your rather idiosyncratic definition. "Idiosyncratic?" Just another complaint.

But even if your definition is granted, your conclusion that "these people seem to be mistaken" doesn't follow. My comment was So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken. If it isn't clear, what I meant was, and what I think the remark says is, as far as anything that has been said here goes, those people seem to be mistaken, a point that you acknowledge (given, of course, my 'idiosyncratic' definition)

At best you can conclude "these people have not demostrated that I am mistaken". In order to conclude that your detractors were mistaken, you would have to provide at least a prima facie argument that your proof was sound. There is some ambiguity in your remarks here, but on what I would call the most obvious interpretation, they are clearly mistaken. If I am misinterpreting you, I apologize.

If you are saying that the demonstration of the soundness of my argument for the existence of God, will show that my detractors were mistaken, then it is clear, isn't it, that I don't have to provide any evidence at all showing that my proof is sound in order to 'conclude' that my detractors are mistaken. All that is necessary is that I know that the argument is sound. That is, all that I have to know to "conclude" that those who are trying to show that the argument is unsound are mistaken is that the argument is valid and that the premises are true.

If I want to persuade you, and others here, that you/they are mistaken, one way would be to show you/them that my argument is sound. Aren't you confusing what has to be the case for me to know with what I might have to do to bring you to know what I know?

I'm going to post this now. I'm not sure of the import of the rest of your post. At one place you put quotation marks around the word "proofs", and at another place (at the end) you didn't. What is the significance of the quotation marks? Do you simply want to know if I think these arguments are sound arguments?

Butte Montana

Butte,

My point is that as a response to people who claim there is no proof of god, your argument is a straw man. No one has made that claim using the sense of proof you offered.

drnihili

drnihili,

My point is that as a response to people who claim there is no proof of god, your argument is a straw man. No one has made that claim using the sense of proof you offered. I know, of course, that those who say that the existence of God cannot be proved won't readily accept my argument for the existence of God as a proof. BUT, do you really think this is because they have a different notion of proof? Isn't it, rather, that they are conflating the notion "proof" and with something else-- maybe with "something that will convince me" or with "something that will convince non-believers"?

If you think they have a different notion of "proof", what is this notion? You and others here seem to be maintaining that my argument is not a proof. I assume that you mean that the conditions on proof, as you understand the notion, have not been satisfied. But you won't say what the conditions are that have not been satisfied.

It surely is unreasonable to ask for a proof without making it clear what is wanted beyond a sound argument. Do you think that there is no relationship between the proof that it is said cannot be produced and a sound argument?

Butte

Look, if you want a definition of proof in common usage, then take a look at a dictionary. More than enough has been said in this thread about why you don't have a proof. I fyou were sincerely interested, you'd stop and try to understand the points other make. Instead you seem more intent upon doggedly defending a claim at all costs. You're welcome to do that of course, but you'll soon find that you're the only one in the conversation.

So you've convinced yourself that you have a proof. No one else agrees, but you've also convinced yourself that they just don't understand. If you're happy with that result, then carry on. If you're not, well you'll have to figure out some other strategy to take.

proof also tend to stand up when deconstructed. you original proof:
"1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God. "

take apart assumption one into two peices:
"1. something exists.

2. something can only exist if there is a God to create it.
----
3. something exists & There is a God to create it. "

lets deal with this first. does something exsist? I'd personnaly say yes, as I can see things, feel them, etc. My perspective is limited to interacting with items via my 5 major senses, so from my perspective, they most likely exsist.
Is god required for things to exist? I don't know. Therefore I cannot positively conclude that the final outcome is true. I can suppose that it may be true, but that results in your original proof being limited to only the possibility that it's conclusion is accurate. Therefor, it is not a proof, but a supposition.

It cannot be a proof until all assumptions and logical steps cannot be logically argued. While the logic of your "proof" is sound, the assumptions can be argued. Your "proof" is not a proof.

Prove that god is a prerequesit to the existance of anything, and you will have made assumption 1 a solid assumption. from that point, your logic will have proven God.

Originally posted by Butte Montana
According to the logic texts, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and has only true premises. If that is so, then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God.

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.


This is why "valid" and "correct" are separate categories. I suggest suicide.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

I don't understand what you mean when you say that the idea is "tragically flawed". Could you put your complaint in other words. I haven't said that the premise is valid (a logical truth) , unless you merely mean by "valid", "true". The premise is true in virtue of the facts ("How is this premise true?"); that is how the premises in the argument above are true.



Don't play stupid, it's unbecoming. A premise is itself a conclusion, listen to how you phrased it yourself, it's an if then statement. The problem with your argument is that the premise "If something exists, then there is a God" is false, because you have not established WHY there must be a God if something exists. Do this, and we can move on in the argument.

Originally posted by Nasor
1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.

A very good example, this is exactly the same reason why the origional conclusion is incorrect, one premise is based upon complicated (well or just frankly untrue) grounds. Why are you the president of the united states because you are typing on a computer? Why must there be a God for something to exist? It's the same thing.

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I haven't offered any justification, nor have I offered any ground, for either of the premises. I do maintain, here, that the premises are true.

And this is the problem, exactly.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it;

And in this way it is exactly like your first argument.





Originally posted by Butte Montana
I am not clear about the import of the question. How does someone's non-acceptance of the truth of the first premise affect its truth? Unless it does, the fact that a person does not accept is irrelevant to the status of my argument as a proof.

If a premise of your conclusion is false then the conclusion itself must be false. One of your premises is untrue, as such the conclusion is invalid. Remember only a true premise and a true premise can yeild a true conclusion.

T+T=T
T+F=F
F+F=F

The idea behind this argument is the belief that everything that exists, exists because of something else which also exists. If God "was" before all else that "is" ever "became", then it is true. The very being of anything that "is" is evidence of God's existence simply because God's Nature is "existence itself".

1.something exists means theres no god

2.something exists

3.theres no god


See i can suggest this because for all we know its the very act of this existence which may have destroyed whatever there was before it.

1.there was god

2.something came into existence

3.something=no god any longer

4.there is no god

Of coarse this doesnt say there was never any god,but it can say there isnt any longer.

1.god=nothing

2.something=no god

3.there is no god=there is no nothing=there is something

If something exists, then there is a God.
Same as "The watch and the watchmaker." You either get it or you don't.

Originally posted by moving
Same as "The watch and the watchmaker." You either get it or you don't.

You see, if that had been the argument, then there would be something to have a discussion about. But he is very explicitly not making that argument. Let's not go putting words into his mouth.

He can't appeal to the watchmaker argument because that argument isn't sound. It's an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. Hence it can't count as a proof in the sense he wants.

As a side note, there's a lot more to the watchmaker argument that "you either get it or you don't", but that's a topic for a different thread.

As a side note, there's a lot more to the watchmaker argument that "you either get it or you don't", but that's a topic for a different thread.
Let me rephrase that. You either believe it or you don't.

Originally posted by moving
Let me rephrase that. You either believe it or you don't.

That's true of every statement. What's special about the watchmaker?

too.. many... big... words!


*wanders off to find chocolate to call his own*

Butte,

"IF, in order to show that it is a proof (a sound argument)..."

Where did you get this bizzare notion that a sound argument is equivalent to a proof???

This notion is causing all of your troubles here.

Glaucon,

Where did you get this bizzare notion that a sound argument is equivalent to a proof???

Couldn't I show someone (prove) that George W. Bush is at least 35 years old by presenting the following sound argument:

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.

I don't think it is a stretch to claim that there is a significant connection between the notion "sound argument" and at least one notion of proof.

However, the 'definition' was offered more as a proposal, as a starting point for the discussion (at least some of it) that has ensued. As I have indicated several times, I am more than willing to consider revising this proposed 'definition', if someone will just explain how it fails to be a proof, or explain how it fails to show that those who maintain that the existence of God cannot be proved are mistaken. So far, respondents have not explained what is missing from the sound argument I have offered, which omission prevents it from being a proof.

Some seem to be contending that it isn't a proof because I haven't proved the premise, "If something exists, then there is a God". I pointed out that proof of the premises cannot be a condition on proof, because such a condition cannot be satisfied, in principle.

Some seem to think that the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", cannot be proved, and challenging me to prove it. But, of course, this is just an claim they make, and it is a claim that it would be foolish for me to try to prove to be false, until we all get clear about what a proof is. It would be a waste of time for me to produce a sound argument for the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", without resolving the "What is a proof?" question. To do so is to leave myself open to the same empty complaint "You haven't proved that "If something exists, then there is a God", because you haven't proved premise 1 in the argument that has "If something exists, then there is a God" as its conclusion.

Some seem to be contending that the argument hasn't convinced them, or that it wouldn't convince some. This I don't dispute. But this fact doesn't support a case for "the existence of God cannot be proved". It might support a case for "No one can prove to me that there is a God" or "No one can prove to all that there is a God", but not much more. At one point I suggested that the claim "The existence of God cannot be proved" emanates from a confusion between "proving" and "proving to me", or something like it.

My assumption has been that (some of) those who are denying that the existence of God can be proved, do not mean merely that they, themselves, cannot be convinced that there is a God. For some of these deniers will maintain that since the existence of God cannot be proved, I, Butte Montanta, cannot know that there is a God. They would not draw such a conclusion if all they were maintaining was that they, themselves, could not be convinced.

In any case, if you think that my "God" argument is not a proof that there is a God, why don't you say why-- what is missing, or is that the wrong question? DO you think a sound argument is a necessary condtion on proof but not a sufficient condition. Do you think that it is not even a necessary condition? Do you acknowledge the soundness of my "God" argument? Do you simply not know if it is sound or not? An "I don't know if the existence of God can be proved or not, because I don't know if Montana's "God" argument is sound or not" is a position that is a lot weaker than a lot of atheists would like to think they occupy

In any case, calling the notion that proofs are sound arguments bizzare (sic!) doesn't tell me, or anyone else WHAT you think is wrong with the proposal.

I've got to go teach a class, and so, leave without proof-reading the above. Please allow me the right to make corrections if I find. later, that I have left out words.

Butte Montana.

Ok, there are two easy ways to go depend on your background.

One is to take derivations to prove sequents rather than statements. The other is to move toward a discussion of plausibility. Depending on context, either solution might be preferred.

Mathematics generally takes the first route. A proof only proves it's conclusion provisionally, based upon the assumptions it makes and the background system of logic. If we take classical first order logic for granted, then your derivation proves only that it's conclusion is true if it's premises are.

Humanities typically take the latter route. At a minimum the premises of a proof must have a higher initial plausibility than the conclusion. Otherwise the reasoning has no probative force. Your derivation fails this requirement. This is why we say that it begs the question. Of course this means that proofs come in degrees just as plausibility does.

it is not bizarre to say that soundnes is related to the notion of proof. It is bizarre to say that they are the same. Most logic books don't deal with soundness except in passing. (Keep in mind we're talking about soundness at the level of derivation, not soundness at the level of a logical system. The latter is dealt with extensively but is an entirely different concept.) Critical Thinking texts do tend to put more emphasis on soundness, but do so more from the perspective of how to avoid non-logical errors.

Originally posted by Butte Montana
Glaucon,



Couldn't I show someone (prove) that George W. Bush is at least 35 years old by presenting the following sound argument:

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.



You could only "show someone" the conclusion, if they found the premises more plausible than the conclusion.

Notice here that you use "prove" in the sense of "show someone". This is much closer to what people mean when they say that the existence of god can't be proven. There is no good arument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god.

:-)

Exactly.

Where To Begin...

First of All, basic Debating,

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.

And all manner of similar arguements presented in this thread, are Circular Arguements (http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LogCircArg.html). This is why your "proof" is false, The Premise is not necessarily true, thus, the conclusion is not necessarily true.

Similarly, your original arguement is circular. Independant of anything else, it's impossible to disprove, because you're putting it in a vacuum where the premise is assumed to be true.

"Some seem to be contending that it isn't a proof because I haven't proved the premise, "If something exists, then there is a God". I pointed out that proof of the premises cannot be a condition on proof, because such a condition cannot be satisfied, in principle. "

Yes, If the Premise is False, the Conclusion is false. Even if the Premise is True, there are still multiple factors to consider, the difference between Causation and Correlation, for instance.

Some seem to think that the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", cannot be proved, and challenging me to prove it. But, of course, this is just an claim they make, and it is a claim that it would be foolish for me to try to prove to be false, until we all get clear about what a proof is. It would be a waste of time for me to produce a sound argument for the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", without resolving the "What is a proof?" question. To do so is to leave myself open to the same empty complaint "You haven't proved that "If something exists, then there is a God", because you haven't proved premise 1 in the argument that has "If something exists, then there is a God" as its conclusion.

Then by all means, Define "Proof" - as you see it.

Build your Arguement, provide your own definitions, and leave it open for people to challenge them. www.dictionary.com is a good start, though you may wish to rely on some other source for your... Curious definitions. I'm interested to see what kind of sound arguement you can give for "If something exists, then there is a God."


My assumption has been that (some of) those who are denying that the existence of God can be proved, do not mean merely that they, themselves, cannot be convinced that there is a God. For some of these deniers will maintain that since the existence of God cannot be proved, I, Butte Montanta, cannot know that there is a God. They would not draw such a conclusion if all they were maintaining was that they, themselves, could not be convinced.

You're trying to point out a difference between Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact) and Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion). Since Opinion is what you and I think, and Fact is what has been proven to be true, most arguements have to rely on Fact, not opinion.

And nothing has been factually proven.

In any case, if you think that my "God" argument is not a proof that there is a God, why don't you say why-- what is missing, or is that the wrong question? DO you think a sound argument is a necessary condtion on proof but not a sufficient condition. Do you think that it is not even a necessary condition? Do you acknowledge the soundness of my "God" argument? Do you simply not know if it is sound or not? An "I don't know if the existence of God can be proved or not, because I don't know if Montana's "God" argument is sound or not" is a position that is a lot weaker than a lot of atheists would like to think they occupy

"I know Montana's "God" Arguement is not sound, based on a lack of facts presented to back up his arguement." - is more like it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to have a basic grasp of Logical parodoxes, but I'm really curious whether you're defending a point you know to be indefensible outside your own independant rules structure (which most of the people herein seem to be playing along with wonderfully) out of academic curiousity - or if you actually have convinced yourself of this arguement?

Independant of the question of whether god exists, do you honestly think this arguement holds up to any kind of scrutiny?

drnihili,

I asked,
Couldn't I show someone (prove) that George W. Bush is at least 35 years old by presenting the following sound argument:

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.


To which drnihili responded, You could only "show someone" the conclusion, if they found the premises more plausible than the conclusion.

Notice here that you use "prove" in the sense of "show someone". This is much closer to what people mean when they say that the existence of god can't be proven. There is no good arument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god.

I don't think I understand what you are saying here, because, as I interpret it, there is nothing in the way of an objection to what I have said.

With respect to the remark about the premises being more plausible than the conclusion, isn't it true that all that has to occur with respect to the person that I show is that the person believe the premises? If they believe the premises, assuming the validity is not in question, they will believe the conclusion. The premises may simply bring to light facts that they weren't aware of. I'll say a bit more about plausibility below.

My use of "prove" here is the same as it has been-- all I have offered in this example is a sound argument. "Show someone" is just another phrase for "prove to someone" and we have already talked about the distinction that can be expressed as a distinction between "proving something" and "proving something to someone". I agreed, indeed I said, that people often seem to mean 'prove it to me when they say "prove it". If I present them with a proof that they don't find convincing, it will be true that I have not proved the conclusion to them. Surely, though, this will be a case of me not presenting them with a proof that they find convincing rather than a case of me not have presented them with a proof. Is a proof of a new theorem that a mathematician discovers not a proof until someone else has the theorem proved to him/her?

Let me finish with a remark or to about your closing claim: "There is no good argument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god". (I assume that what you mean by "good" is "sound"; please correct me if I am wrong) Is you employment of plausibility here is a bit different from the earlier employment. Earlier the plausbility was a comparative plausibility bwith respect to the premises and the conclusion. Here it seems to be matter of plausibility along some other dimension, though it isn't clear what. If the latter is just a matter of plausibility as far as the person to whom the proof is offered is concerned, then this seems once again to be running together the notions "prove" and "prove to someone".

My response to the claim that "there is no good argument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god", is, first, to note that you are, in effect, placing yourself among those I was referring to when I began this thread "One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved." The second part of my response is to point out that your claim is nothing more that a denial that my "God" argument is a good argument with plausible premises. You may not find the premises (one of them, anyway) plausible. But there are many who find the premises quite plausible. However, I certainly would not use the fact that many find the premises quite plausible to try to convince you that the argument is a sound argument.

I am glad to see that you have remained in the discussion. Contrary to what you said earlier, I am trying, sincerely, to understand why you think you can say of my argument "It isn't a proof" rather than "I don't know if it is a proof or not" (I assume that this change is, at least, part of what you are resisting). As an act of good will, why don't you take a few minutes and explain to Xaositecte and to Mystech that that they are in terrible need of some training in elementary logic.

Butte Montana

There are a number of ways to take this discussion, I'm not sure which, if any, is likely to be productive.

The notion of plausibility is a difficult one. It is a non-technical notion which has resisted attempt to formalize it. This by itself should not count against it's use, many ordinary notions are difficult to formalize. Any formalization of it, however, is likely to appeal to the notion of epistemic probability. Put in these terms my claim is roughly that you lack a proof because that posterior epistemic probability of your conclusion is no greater than it's prior epistemic probability. Put less technically, if someone were to accept the premises of your proof and deny the conclusion, prior to seeing your proof, then your proof would not move them to accept the conclusion or even assign it a greater probability than before seeing it.

Contrary to what glaucon said above, deductive proofs do add to our knowledge. Otherwise mathematics would be a very poor field. We do not know all of the statements that are provable from statemens that we already accept. Many a person has become convinced of the truth of a conclusion after seeing a deductive proof. Prior to the proof they assigned a high epistemic probability to the premises and a low probability to the conclusion. After seeing the proof they assigned an increased probability to the proof.

Now, plausibility is a normative rather than a descriptive notion. WHat's at stake is how one ought, in virtue of rationality, to believe, not how people in fact believe. So the claim is that a rational person ought not to assign an increased probability to your conclusion merely on the basis of seeing your proof.

If someone were to accept the premises of your proof and yet deny it's conclusion, that would be evidence against their rationality. You can probably gues that single inference deductions are almost never (I would say never, but I like to hedge my bets) proofs.

So what do you need for a proof? You need an argument for which a person, qua rational being, might assign a higher probability to the premises than the conclusion, and such that upon seeing your proof the person would be epistemically obliged to assign as high a probability to the conclusion as they do to the premises.

Ok, that's one direction, here's another.

You claim to have a counterexample to the statement "There is no proof that god exists." In order to test whether your claim is correct, we must understand what the statement means. First off, it cannot be reasonably taken to mean that there is no valid argument that god exists. It is widely knows that there are many such arguments. The people who claim there is no proof, are aware of these arguments. So we could only interpret the statement in that way by claiming that the people who made it were either dishonest or irrational. The norms of civil discourse and interpretation do not allow that in these circumstances.

But neither can we take them to mean that there is no sound argument. Many of the people who have claimed there is no proof of god are themselves theists. They believe that the premises and conclusion of at least some of the valid arguments are true. Thus they cannot mean that there is no sound argument.

If you'll look at the literature, you'll find that the discussion centers around the probative force of the proofs, about whether the proof could reasonably taken as the basis of rational belief. This is something like the first direction I took above.

A good example to look at is Charles Hartshorne's modal version of the ontological argument. Hartshorne demonstration that the first inference of the following argument is valid in modal logic. He then maintained that his demonstration, combined with the following argument, constitute a proof that god exists.

If god exists, then it is necessary that god exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If it's possible that god exists, then he does exist.
It is possible that god exists.
--------------------------------
God exists.

Hartshorne at least has a plausible candidate for a proof. It is certainly possible for a reasonable person to accept his two premises and yet not accept the conclusion. Furthermore, the claim that god is possible is so weak as have some call to plausibility. THe first premise is merely a partial definition of "god", and so is unobjectionable.

Discussion of whether Hartshorne actually has a proof has centered on the plausibility of the seond premise. No one, so far as I know, has seriously questione the first premise or the inference from it.

By the way, for completeness sake I should note that Hartshorne was following up on a suggestion made by Norman Malcolm that there are actually two versions of the ontological argument present in Anselm's writings and that the second, modal version is a proof.

Disregarding the entire series of valid points made by (among others) Mystech and myself because we're reaching outside the logical box you've constructed doesn't enhance your arguement any. To be honest, I've never taken a Logic class, and am treating it like a debate, wherein it is very valid and proper to attack a premise that sees as false, before even tackling the conclusion.

Quite Simply: Before I can even consider the conclusion, I have to accept the Premise as true.

You -have not- demonstrated that the Premise is true.

Just as Nasor's arguement earlier, and your response;





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am curious as to what this is supposed to show. Surely the fact that one can produce unsound arguments doesn't show that one cannot produce sound arguments. Surely it doesn't raise any question about my "God" argument, that it doesn't also raise about my "Pennsylvania" argument.

How about specifying what you think producing your argument (an argument that you know to be unsound) shows about my argument for the existence of God.

It shows that a Premise can be false, and must be verified before any conclusions derived from that Premise must be proven true before the conclusion can be accepted as true.

As a parting question, given your interpretation of logic, do you agree that this arguement is a valid proof:

1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god.


?

Originally posted by Xaositecte

As a parting question, given your interpretation of logic, do you agree that this arguement is a valid proof:

1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god.


?

Allow me to answer for him. Yes, that is valid. He will deny that it is sound.

What we're running into here is a clash between technical terms and common language. In Logic, "valid" has a very specific meaning. It merely means that it is impossible for the premises of the argument to all be true while at the same time the conclusion is false. It says nothing at all about whether the premises are true or even vaguely reasonable. To say that an argument is "sound" is just to say that it is valid and all the premises are true.

First of all, Let me Thank you for Clarifying that, I honestly hadn't the slightest idea what the difference between Valid and Sound was in terms of logic. There are more than a few other terms I'm unfamiliar with going through this debate, hence why I asked (Albeit not really in the right way, all things considered) - for definitions above.. And now, I suppose I'll continue;


Why would

"1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists
---------
3. God Exists"

Be considered in any way sound, while

"1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god. "

might not be?

What, if anything, is the difference between those statements?

Originally posted by Butte Montana
One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved. Is this so?

Yes.
Originally posted by Butte Montana

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.

This argument is valid (the conclusion follws from the premises).

The argument is valid until you attempt to define what "god" is, then you have a little problem. Know what I mean?
Originally posted by Butte Montana

Taking up the role of the believer,

If you classify yourself as a believer you turn your argument in a circle. Especially if you're "taking up a role". To find an answer you should neither believe or disbelieve... there is only plausibility in the end eh (e.g. "it seemed plausible or it didn't").
Originally posted by Butte Montana

I contend that the two premises are true.

The funny thing is that my good sense cannot deflate your delusionary balloon.. nor yours mine - we are ultimately responsible to recognize 'good sense' for ourselves eh? In essence, we are merely stuck hoping we have a clue.. or laughing about the fact that no matter how much we think we know - we don't really know shit.
Originally posted by Butte Montana

Hence, this is a sound argument for the existence of God.

Or a gigantic potatoe squid from galapilogamos.

If something exists, there is a gigantic potatoe squid from glapilogamos.

something exists.

there is a gigantic potatoe squid from glapilogamos.

The power of communication is almost.. godlike. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Butte Montana

Since a sound argument is a proof, this is a proof that there is a God.

Or anything else you think should exist because something does.

Disregarding the entire series of valid points made by (among others) Mystech and myself because we're reaching outside the logical box you've constructed doesn't enhance your arguement any. To be honest, I've never taken a Logic class, and am treating it like a debate, wherein it is very valid and proper to attack a premise that sees as false, before even tackling the conclusion. I wouldn't say that I have disregarded the material posted by you (and/ or Mystech). It is just that stretches of the material in your post verges on the incoherent. This may sound harsh, but when a person says, of an argument such as

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.


And all manner of similar arguements presented in this thread, are Circular Arguements . This is why your "proof" is false, The Premise is not necessarily true, thus, the conclusion is not necessarily true., I really have no confidence that I understand the points that person is attempting to make. The "President" argument that I provided is not a circular argument by the definition of circular argument in the link you provide as a reference. If I make the assumption that you understood what you read in that link, then I have to conclude that I have no idea what you are saying about my "President" argument.

Independant of anything else, it's impossible to disprove, because you're putting it in a vacuum where the premise is assumed to be true. I have no idea what this means.

You said to anotherFirst of all, Let me Thank you for Clarifying that, I honestly hadn't the slightest idea what the difference between Valid and Sound was in terms of logic. In the post with which I started this thread, I said,
Let us understand a proof to be a sound argument. Such an understanding fits with what is often suggested in Logic texts.

According to the logic texts, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and has only true premises.

Butte Montana

wesmorris,

Of my argument,

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.

You saidThis argument is valid (the conclusion follws from the premises).

The argument is valid until you attempt to define what "god" is, then you have a little problem. Know what I mean? In fact, I have no idea what you mean. If the argument is valid, it is valid, isn't it? An explication of what I mean by "God" certainly isn't going to change the validity of the argument, but you probably aren't suggesting that, so, once again, I have no idea what you mean.


Taking up the role of the believer,

If you classify yourself as a believer you turn your argument in a circle. I think this point has already be taken up when it was urged by an earlier poster. Whether or not I am a believer has nothing to do with the circulairty/non-circularity of the argument that I have presented. If you think otherwise, please explain. Is any argument for any conclusion circular if it is presented by someone who believes the conclusion is true? That is going to make all of your arguments against me circular. I must misunderstand you here, so help, please!

To find an answer you should neither believe or disbelieve... there is only plausibility in the end eh (e.g. "it seemed plausible or it didn't"). I am not trying to find an answer about the existence of God here.


The funny thing is that my good sense cannot deflate your delusionary balloon.. nor yours mine - we are ultimately responsible to recognize 'good sense' for ourselves eh? In essence, we are merely stuck hoping we have a clue.. or laughing about the fact that no matter how much we think we know - we don't really know shit. I don't share your stated view that we really don't know shit, but if that is your view, what are you doing here and why are you talking to me?


Butte Montana

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I don't share your stated view that we really don't know shit, but if that is your view, what are you doing here and why are you talking to me?

Illustrating to you how you don't know shit.

You were right, your argument isn't valid at all. My bad.

Why didn't you retort to the part where I showed the flaw in your logic?

Originally posted by Butte Montana
wesmorris,
You said In fact, I have no idea what you mean. If the argument is valid, it is valid, isn't it?

Sorry, I was wrong. It's a little tricky though because the validity of your argument is conditional. It depends on what you insert at the end of first line and the conclusion drawn in the second right?
Originally posted by Butte Montana

An explication of what I mean by "God" certainly isn't going to change the validity of the argument, but you probably aren't suggesting that, so, once again, I have no idea what you mean.

I think that's exactly backwards. In fact, the entire validity of your argument tentatively rests on what you mean by 'god'. As soon as you settle on a definition, you bring up a whole new set of questions see?

What I was attempting to illustrate in a broad sense was the fact that there is no methodology for selecting one instance of a definition of god over the other (unless of course you know of one that I'm not aware of). More specific to this case however I was illustrating that your usage of the word 'god' is no more specific than using the variable "x".
Originally posted by Butte Montana

I think this point has already be taken up when it was urged by an earlier poster. Whether or not I am a believer has nothing to do with the circulairty/non-circularity of the argument that I have presented. If you think otherwise, please explain.

That would be true if you weren't so invested that you can't see the flaw in your logic, yes. If however in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary you insist your reasoning to be valid, your personal beliefs turn your argument into a circle..
Originally posted by Butte Montana

I must misunderstand you here, so help, please!

I will presume only to illustrate, I don't hold the following to be true: Well, I did note that you didn't address the meat of my illustration as to why your logic is flawed. That is evidence supportive of the presumption that you aren't really concerned with logical validity, but merely to justify your assertion regardless of the ojective validity. If you can do so by destroying the character of those who attack your argument, it is easier that attacking the logic.

We haven't interacted long enough for me to make that determination of you, but I've seen this a gazillion times. It's simply human nature.
Originally posted by Butte Montana

I am not trying to find an answer about the existence of God here.

Hehe, you're funny. Smartass beeatch!

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I wouldn't say that I have disregarded the material posted by you (and/ or Mystech). It is just that stretches of the material in your post verges on the incoherent. This may sound harsh, but when a person says, of an argument such as

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.

I suppose that's where we have the issue, You're using all kinds of definitions from a logic perspective, whereas I'm coming at it from the perspective of Debate. They're entirely different languages as far as I can tell, your posts are just about as incoherant to me as mine are to you.


I really have no confidence that I understand the points that person is attempting to make. The "President" argument that I provided is not a circular argument by the definition of circular argument in the link you provide as a reference. If I make the assumption that you understood what you read in that link, then I have to conclude that I have no idea what you are saying about my "President" argument.

In essence, It's an arguement that uses itself as justification, which every single three-point arguement presented here is doing. Giving reasons as to why the Arguement is correct (I.E. United States Law states that an individual must be at least 35 years old to be president) - backing up an assertion with facts outside the arguement prevents it from being circular.

Any discussion of that arguement would be something like,

"Well, why does the president have to be at least 35 years old?"
"Because the President has to be at least 35 years old."


Everything else in your post is, in one way or another, confusion over the point of:

I Want you to Prove the Premises to be True!

Butte has given a valid argument and claims the premises are true. However, he has made no attempt to justify the premises. You, quite understandably, want him to justify his premises. Here arises the problem, I'll put this in debate terms rather than logic. (THe two are closely related, but different.)

Butte can rightly argue as follows.

Every argument starts from premises. You can't require that the arguer always supply justification for each of the premises. Any such justification would itself be an argument starting from premises, which would in turn require justification. So requiring that all premises be independently justified will lead to an infinite regress.

So if you want to require that Butte supply a justification of his premises, then it's up to you to say why his argument requires it, even though not all arguments require it.

'Aight, so it boils down to, why do I want Butte Montana to Justify his Premises?

Trying to avoid a logic arguer behaving like the annoying little girl on Animaniacs years ago who would keep asking, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" - every time an explaination was offered. I see the point.

Because, in debate anyways, if someone comes up with a point, it's assumed to be correct until someone else asks them to justify the point. This is usually done by citing a reputable source (Scientific study, Survey, News Article, direct observation, etc.) - or further explaining the point. The Justification I have to give for making someone justify their premises is, politely put, "I'm unfamiliar with your premises, and know of nothing in my background or research that supports it. Would you please cite the sources which cause you to believe your premise to be true?"

Alternatively, I could cite accepted scientific models of the creation of the Universe, and explainations for existence which, although incomplete, have more justification for them then the premises given by Butte Montana. Disputing the arguement itself (as debate teaches) rather than the format of the arguement (which has been occuring in this thread) is what I'm familiar with, and what makes sense to me...

Originally posted by Xaositecte
'Aight, so it boils down to, why do I want Butte Montana to Justify his Premises?

Trying to avoid a logic arguer behaving like the annoying little girl on Animaniacs years ago who would keep asking, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" - every time an explaination was offered. I see the point.

Because, in debate anyways, if someone comes up with a point, it's assumed to be correct until someone else asks them to justify the point. This is usually done by citing a reputable source (Scientific study, Survey, News Article, direct observation, etc.) - or further explaining the point. The Justification I have to give for making someone justify their premises is, politely put, "I'm unfamiliar with your premises, and know of nothing in my background or research that supports it. Would you please cite the sources which cause you to believe your premise to be true?"

Alternatively, I could cite accepted scientific models of the creation of the Universe, and explainations for existence which, although incomplete, have more justification for them then the premises given by Butte Montana. Disputing the arguement itself (as debate teaches) rather than the format of the arguement (which has been occuring in this thread) is what I'm familiar with, and what makes sense to me...

But you still haven't said why he is obligated in this case to justify his premises. You can't insist that any call for justification must be honored, or you'll be back at the Animaniacs episode.

What in the nature of Butte's argument makes it such that he is required to provide additional justification? I've attempted an answer to this above based on the epistemic probability of the conclusion relative to that of the premises. What answer do you give?

Short and sweet;

I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever leading me to believe the Premise. Without that Evidence, I cannot accurately ascertain the soudness of the arguement.

The Evidence I am aware of contradicts both the premise and the conclusion, thus, justification of your premise is necessary for me to accept the premise as truth.

Originally posted by Xaositecte
Short and sweet;

I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever leading me to believe the Premise. Without that Evidence, I cannot accurately ascertain the soudness of the arguement.

The Evidence I am aware of contradicts both the premise and the conclusion, thus, justification of your premise is necessary for me to accept the premise as truth.

Ok, but notice that that isn't about the argument presented, that's about your state of knowledge. That explains why you don't agree with the argument, but it doesn't explain why the argument isn't a good one.

If we said that arguments weren't good whenever someone sincerely disagreed with their premises, then there would be exceedingly few good arguments, perhaps none. We'd be back at the Animaniacs. I'll wager that there are a good many mathematical proofs that you wouldn't agree with either. Does that mean that they aren't proofs? Or merely that they aren't convincing to you.

Unless you want to relativize the notion of proof, you can't say that whether something counts as a proof depends upon features of the audience that happens to hear it. And there are lots of reasons not to relativize the notion of proof. I'm not saying that audience doesn't matter when considering arguments. I'm saying that it can't matter in a particular way, in the way that determines whether something is a proof.

Butte is perfectly willing to admit that people may disagree with his premises, and that he has said nothing that an atheist should find convincing. What he claims is that his argument is sound in the technical sense, and that in virtue of it's soundness it counts as a proof.

Now, apply your debate framework to his claim. In a Toulmin analysis this looks like Claim: Butte's argument is a proof. Ground: Butte's argument is sound. Warrant: All sound arguments are proofs. Now, you can only undermine his argument by refuting his ground or undermining his warrant. I can assure you that his argument is sound in the relevant sense. That means you have to undermine his warrant.

Remember, the issue here is not whether there is a god. The issue is whether Butte's argument is a proof.

Which brings me back to:

"1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god. "

Which is just as Valid and Sound as it's opposite.

Sorry for butting in late. I followed drnihili here, whom I noticed in the Physics and Math forum. I haven't read the whole thing, but skimming through the topic I haven't seen anything about truth-functional propositions (specifically material implication), which is really the fundamental issue here.


1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.


This argument is indeed deductively valid and noncircular, but the soundness is far from established, because the truth of Premise 1 is not established.

Premise 1 is of the form

p-->q, or "If p then q." This structure has the following truth table:


p q p-->q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T


If we ignore the "nihilist" objection and grant the truth of the antecedent term (p), the truth of the consequent term (q) still needs to be established in order to determine the truth of the premise.

Originally posted by Xaositecte
Which brings me back to:

"1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god. "

Which is just as Valid and Sound as it's opposite.

It is just as valid. It cannot be just as sound. Only one of the two arguments can be sound because of our definition. Our definition implies that sound arguments must have true conclusions.

Butte has to admit that if it turns out that there is no god, your argument is a proof and his is not. His position is that exactly one of the two arguments is a proof (he claims it's his argument). I take it that you would agree with me that neither argument is a proof.

That's the point I've been trying to make all along, yo.

Originally posted by Tom2
the truth of the consequent term (q) still needs to be established in order to determine the truth of the premise.

That's exactly what I said 'ceptin it's fancier.

Umm, this is all a bit confusing.

The argument does not appear valid to me.
Premise 1: "If something exists, then there is a God." has not been proven. Actually, it is quite illogical. Where is the connection between something existing and the existence of a God? The arguer has failed to explain the connection between the two.

If that argument is valid, what about this one?

1. If something exists, then there is no God.

2. Something exists.

3. There is no God.

Originally posted by mountainhare
The argument does not appear valid to me.
Premise 1: "If something exists, then there is a God." has not been proven. Actually, it is quite illogical. Where is the connection between something existing and the existence of a God? The arguer has failed to explain the connection between the two.

If that argument is valid, what about this one?

1. If something exists, then there is no God.

2. Something exists.

3. There is no God.

Both arguments are valid. That said, let's clear up something: valid here means deductively valid, not that the premises or conclusion are true. When we say "valid" we are referring only to the structure of the argument, not the content. Both arguments (yours and the first one) have identical structures:

1. p-->q (Premise)
2. p (Premise)
3. Therefore q (Conclusion)

That is what we refer to when we say the argument is "valid". An argument is valid if the truth of the premises necessarily implies the truth of the conlcusion.

Establishing the truth of the premises is another matter entirely.

Tom's right. An unproven premise leads to a conclusion of conjecture.
Most notably, the actual existence of things is questionable. And that's why arguments which try to show that
things can only be known as abstract thoughts, are the correct way to proceed in philosophical pursuit of 'reality'.

Originally posted by Butte Montana
One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved. Is this so?

Let us understand a proof to be a sound argument. Such an understanding fits with what is often suggested in Logic texts.

According to the logic texts, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and has only true premises. If that is so, then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God.

1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists.
3. There is a God.

We exist. We were created in God's image through evolution. Therefore, God exists in us and we in God.

Your argument is perfectly valid... however the 'soundness' is debatable. Unless you somehow show your premises to be true, it doesn't 'prove' your conclusion.

Originally posted by Persol
Your argument is perfectly valid... however the 'soundness' is debatable. Unless you somehow show your premises to be true, it doesn't 'prove' your conclusion.
There are very few sound premises that are absolutely true. Mathematics is true unto itself, but doesn't tell us anything about reality. However, humankind shares experience, gleaned from sensation.
We see, we think, we feel... are the only absolutes. What we see, think and feel, is conjecture.

Life, you are correct. And, as you said, it is possible to convience someone that a premise is true based on shared experiences (even if those experiences are conjecture) and common thought processes.

This is just avoiding the main point though. His first premise has not been shown to stand on its own.

Originally posted by Persol
Life, you are correct. And, as you said, it is possible to convience someone that a premise is true based on shared experiences (even if those experiences are conjecture) and common thought processes.

Thankyou. So why is materialism seen as sensible?

This is just avoiding the main point though. His first premise has not been shown to stand on its own.
True. But this specific discussion is a Dodo... and I was just trying to get everyone on the right track towards future meaningful debate.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Thankyou. So why is materialism seen as sensible?
To take a stab at it, I would have to say that it is thought to lead to social interaction and status. (Neglecting things that are obviously useful as not being materialistic.) I'd have to argue about how 'sensible' materialism is seen too be. It seems more like suppliers try and shift items from the 'materialistic' to the 'need' category... and people simply believe it.

To be honest, I'm not sure where this can go because I'm not sure how you'd define sensible without relating it back to perception.


But this specific discussion is a Dodo...
Agreed.

All proofs are a proofs to someone who accepts the premises.

So in this case, if that person accepts the premise that the existence of anything implies God, and that things exist, then the syllogism will prove to that person that there is a God.

If someone does not accept the premises, then it does not prove that there is a God to that person.

Therefore the proof is only valid to people who don't need it.
Valid? Yes
Useful? No

Originally posted by Butte Montana

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.



You need a proof that statement number one is true. If you can prove statement one is true, I will convert myself.

The general approach might be:
A => B, B => C, C => D.
A would be "something exists."... ending with D, which is "there is a God."
You can then conclude A => D.

James Sibley

ahem... no, I'm afraid you based your proof on the wrong idea. Who knows if something exists. you might be the creation of your own imagination. well you never know there are infinte possibilities. and you have to clearly define what "god" means to you. is it a powerful energy or the guy in the Bible?

yo i think butte realized he was way off and went away to regroup.

Perhaps Butte is gone. We probably scared him off, showing the flaw in his reasoning. Maybe he is under a new user name :-p

James Sibley

4DHyperCubix, wesmorris,

Oh I am around-- there just hasn't been anything to say, that hasn't already been said.

Your self-evaluation is misguided and nothing more than empty self-flattery. It has not been necessary to respond, since no significant objections to my proof have been presented. drnihili has understood this, and has ably offered (at 06-22-03 at 04:40 PM, 06-22-03 at 04:50 PM, 06-22-03 at 09:19 PM, 06-22-03 at 10:22 PM) the responses that I would have offered if he/she had not.

I have offered what I have called a proof for the existence of God and I have made it clear, in the opening post, what I mean by "proof" (sound argument). Many of the objections have been nothing more than expressions of "you haven't convinced me", which show nothing about the soundness/unsoundness of my argument. Often respondents contend that I must prove one premise or the other-- but they don't say exactly why I must do this. The premises are true (or false), whether or not any one here believes they are true (or false), and the argument is valid whether or not anyone here believes it is valid. Hence the argument is sound (or unsound) whether or not anyone believes it is sound (unsound).

Of course, if I were to claim to prove that the proof that God exists is a proof, I would have to prove that the conditions on proof have been satisfied. That is, prove that the two premises are each true and prove that the argument is valid. But that is an entriely different line of argumentation, and I have not claimed to have done this.

But, similarly, if you want to prove that the argument is not a proof, then you must prove that one or the other (or both) of the presmises is false and/or that the argument is invalid. OR, you must show that the notion of proof that I have employed is mistaken in some signifcant way. The mere fact that you, individually, are not convinced by the proof is not obviously a flaw in the proof.

Many of you think that I am not entitled to claim that the argument is a proof unless I have proved that it is a proof. Well then, you are not entitled to claim that it isn't a proof unless you prove that it isn't-- show that one or the other or the premises (or both) is false, and/or that the argument is invalid.

One of you, drnihili, has seen that the primary point of this thread has been to focus discussion on the notion of proof. What has emerged is that the rest of you have no clear idea of what a proof is, and cannot keep, "It has not been proved" separate from "I am not convinced". This latter confusion is a significant one in that it underlies the belief by many amateur thinkers that philosophy never gets anywhere.



4DHyperCubix,

You 'objection' in your recent post has already been addressed by me and again by drnihili in one of the posts mentioned by date above. Why don't you read over the thread before you try again-- you might save yourself some time/effort.



Butte Montana

Originally posted by Butte Montana
4DHyperCubix,

You 'objection' in your recent post has already been addressed by me and again by drnihili in one of the posts mentioned by date above. Why don't you read over the thread before you try again-- you might save yourself some time/effort.

I do read the stuff. However, I do not see how what I say will hurt anything. If you do not want to read it, you do not have to. I am not affected one bit. Good day :)

then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God - emphasis added by wes

As has been said a number of times throughout this thread, the offered premise is faulty because it leads directly to a circular proof. If a proof is devised to prove that which is already assumed, how have you not gone in a complete circle.

1) I believe (in god)
2) If something exists, then there is a God.
3) Something exists.
4) (I believe (based on this proof)) There is a God.

1->2
2->3
3->4
4->1

As has been demonstrated several times, the argument is invalid. I fail to see why you claim otherwise.

OMFG. i am going to put an end to this horribly irrational and idiotic discussion right now. This is so hideously inane that it is a wonder it has had so many replies. It should have ended with one. Writing this post is a waste of my time, as was responding to Butte's original for all of you, and actually trying to explain this, and horribly failing, for Butte. Think of all the hours that you have wasted on this. seriously. In the beginning of 8th grade geometry, i learned about the law of syllogism. This creates two statements, linked logically, that produce a result.
All men have penises (by definiton)
i am a man
therefore i have a penis.
Judging by Butte's responses, i am thoroughly convinced that this is the only education that he has had in this matter. that is 8th grade geometry. His argument:
Originally posted by Butte Montana
1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Goes against so many logical principles that he, with his 8th grade mathematical education, has yet to learn (begging the question, circular reasoning, etc. ) . Look at the first statement. This does NOT draw a logical conclusion from the first part of the statement. If something exists, it must have been created, but there is no proof that the thing that created it was God. It could have been a space alien, or another person. Or it could have been born out of a chemical reaction. It sickens me that this thread has gone on so long, and its even worse that no one has been able to stop this horribly logic-challenged 8th grader, fresh out of geometry class and out of school for the summer. My advice to Butte: go color in your coloring books. and to everyone else: don't waste your time replying to such posts, it only encourages him.

Originally posted by TheNatMan
OMFG. i am going to put an end to this horribly irrational and idiotic discussion right now. This is so hideously inane that it is a wonder it has had so many replies. It should have ended with one. Writing this post is a waste of my time, as was responding to Butte's original for all of you, and actually trying to explain this, and horribly failing, for Butte. Think of all the hours that you have wasted on this. seriously. In the beginning of 8th grade geometry, i learned about the law of syllogism. This creates two statements, linked logically, that produce a result.
All men have penises (by definiton)
i am a man
therefore i have a penis.
Judging by Butte's responses, i am thoroughly convinced that this is the only education that he has had in this matter. that is 8th grade geometry. His argument:
Originally posted by Butte Montana
1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Goes against so many logical principles that he, with his 8th grade mathematical education, has yet to learn (begging the question, circular reasoning, etc. ) . Look at the first statement. This does NOT draw a logical conclusion from the first part of the statement. If something exists, it must have been created, but there is no proof that the thing that created it was God. It could have been a space alien, or another person. Or it could have been born out of a chemical reaction. It sickens me that this thread has gone on so long, and its even worse that no one has been able to stop this horribly logic-challenged 8th grader, fresh out of geometry class and out of school for the summer. My advice to Butte: go color in your coloring books. and to everyone else: don't waste your time replying to such posts, it only encourages him.

Have you ever had a logic course in your life? Have you bothered to read the thread? Did you understand it? Or were you too busy being offended?

Butte's "proof" has problems. But they aren't problems with his logic. They are problems in the concept of proof. Heaping invective on him for imagined flaws only makes you look like an idiot. If you have something to actually contribute to the discussion, then by all meanse do so. But given the gross misunderstanding of logic shown in your post, I suggest you refrain from throwing stones until you move out of that glass house you're living in.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
also i think there are some nihilists floating around on the board, so your second premice "something exists" will probably also be called into question by somone else. why not try to proove that one too.

I plan to do just that...

IMNSHO existence is a major flaw in the world as it is. Your perception of yourself as you look into a mirror and the perception of the mirror and of the floor beneath you is all perceived through your brain and it would be stupid to say otherwise. Whereas another person may perceive that object differently. A person you may perceive as mentally ill, but they may perceive themselves as normal and may or may not perceive you as different. To go into a phase of paradox, you can only have one true reality (not two or more as your perception and somebody elses perception would suggest) and if there is more than one reality there is no reality because a reality would be real for both people. If you are going with the second definition of "reality" from dictionary.com.

"re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
The quality or state of being actual or true.
:m: One, :m: such as a person, an entity, or an
event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political
realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.). "

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this problem further, as I know it is not perfectly worded and may confuse some of you.

log·i·cal __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(lj-kl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.


There is a conflict in the very DEFINITION of logical. The statement "1. If something exists, then there is a God." is not known, because theists are unable to explain scientifically why God exists. If you can make up another proof as to why the fact that something is created has anything to do with the fact that God created it, then be my guest. And the conclusion is based on the assumption in the first statement that God created this thing. Thus it is a circular agument. It is an uncontrolled study if you will, in that there could be many things that created this thing. Just because i didnt use the word "premise" (as many of you have been so keen to do to show your understanding of what one is. my apologies to Xaositecte, Mystech, and wesmorris) and "idiosyncratic" (which was not correctly used...it means "peculiar")doesnt mean that i dont understand logic. You have been skirting around this very simple issue (we all know this proof is tragically flawed), with big words , but really, why use the big words when smaller, simpler ones will do, if not to show off your vocabulary in an attempt to make your argument seem more valid. I was frustrated because very simply, every one of us knows this is false, and it has taken 80 something posts (that i HAVE read) to go way too in depth on this very simple issue. And also, i recognize that his definition of "proof" is flawed. We have established that. Lets move on. Lets go have tea parties and enjoy life. And another thing: ive changed my mind. Butte is not an 8th grader at all. he is just fucking with all of you. He knows that his proof is false, but wanted to see how long this thread could go on. If this is the case, then kudos to Butte.

Originally posted by TheNatMan
There is a conflict in the very DEFINITION of logical. The statement "1. If something exists, then there is a God." is not known, because theists are unable to explain scientifically why God exists. If you can make up another proof as to why the fact that something is created has anything to do with the fact that God created it, then be my guest. And the conclusion is based on the assumption in the first statement that God created this thing. Thus it is a circular agument. It is an uncontrolled study if you will, in that there could be many things that created this thing. Just because i didnt use the word "premise" (as many of you have been so keen to do to show your understanding of what one is. my apologies to Xaositecte, Mystech, and wesmorris) and "idiosyncratic" (which was not correctly used...it means "peculiar")doesnt mean that i dont understand logic. You have been skirting around this very simple issue (we all know this proof is tragically flawed), with big words , but really, why use the big words when smaller, simpler ones will do, if not to show off your vocabulary in an attempt to make your argument seem more valid. I was frustrated because very simply, every one of us knows this is false, and it has taken 80 something posts (that i HAVE read) to go way too in depth on this very simple issue. And also, i recognize that his definition of "proof" is flawed. We have established that. Lets move on. Lets go have tea parties and enjoy life. And another thing: ive changed my mind. Butte is not an 8th grader at all. he is just fucking with all of you. He knows that his proof is false, but wanted to see how long this thread could go on. If this is the case, then kudos to Butte.

As I suspected, never taken a logic class, clueless about what Butte's point is, but would rather deride than understand. And yes, you don't understand logic. That doesn't mean you don't do a pretty good job of reasoning in general, it means that you don't have any idea what the issues are in the study of logic.

For example, Butte's proof says nothing about God being a creator. Yet you go on and on about this being related to the flaw. There is not flaw in the logic of Butte's argument. There is a flaw in his labelling the argument a proof, but this has to do with rhetorical and methodological points, not logical ones.

If you think this is all a waste of time, then why are you bothering with it?

The first statement:1. If something exists, then there is a God generally implies that this God figure created it. This is common sense, which i suppose is what i am going on about. No, i havent taken a logic class, but common sense kicks in first. I realize what you all are blabbering on about (and it is blabbering), these "rhetorical" and "methodological" points, but all along, Butte has maintained that this is an issue of "a proof " versus "a proof to YOU". that takes rhetoric out of the way. AND, methodology is a branch of logic. You should stick to the basics when you write things. Try 3 and 4 letter words. because you dont seem to do well with the longer ones.

Originally posted by TheNatMan
The first statement:1. If something exists, then there is a God generally implies that this God figure created it. This is common sense, which i suppose is what i am going on about.

No. The first premise does not imply that God created it. Try looking up "material conditional" and trying to learn a bit.

No, i havent taken a logic class, but common sense kicks in first.

Ah, so it's YOU who don't know any logic beyond what you got in 8th grade geometry, and probably didn't do so well in that. Yet you have the audacity to go blubbering around at others about how little they know.

I realize what you all are blabbering on about (and it is blabbering), these "rhetorical" and "methodological" points, but all along, Butte has maintained that this is an issue of "a proof " versus "a proof to YOU". that takes rhetoric out of the way. AND, methodology is a branch of logic.

You have this precisely backwards. It is precisely because of the proof/proof to you distinction that this is a matter of rhetoric and not logic. Further, methodolody is definitely not a branch of logic.

You should stick to the basics when you write things. Try 3 and 4 letter words. because you dont seem to do well with the longer ones.

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding what other people say. Perhaps if you would stop assuming that you know it all and start reading, then you'll do better at following the thread. So far you've spent your time accusing others of the very things of which you are guilty, and then going on to tell them that they are wasting their time. If you would focus some of the energy you spend in deriding others on actually trying to increase your own knowledge, you might find things a bit less disturbing and confusing.

Okay drnihili, maybe you can explain it to me in terms of logic. How is the first line of his logic valid?

He offers:

If something exists, there is a god.

For that to be true, it should be representative of a known relationship or a given fact somewhere.

"If something exists" doesn't necessarily mean that there "is a god". Thusly for his statement to be logically valid, wouldn't there neccessarily have to be a god for something to exist? This statement in and of itself would REQUIRE a proof (which is offered only in the form that 'a believer might offer this argument') to back it up right? As such, doesn't that mean that there IS a problem with his logic in that for it to seem valid it asks that you ignore that it is circular? Please explain.

"You have this precisely backwards. It is precisely because of the proof/proof to you distinction that this is a matter of rhetoric and not logic. Further, methodolody is definitely not a branch of logic."

meth·od·ol·o·gy __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(mth-dl-j)
n. pl. meth·od·ol·o·gies
1. a. A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods: the methodology of genetic studies; a poll marred by faulty methodology.
b. The study or theoretical analysis of such working methods.
2. The branch of logic that deals with the general principles of the formation of knowledge.
!!!! do my eyes deceive me?!?!?! how can this be! Either the dictionary is wrong, or Drnihili is...hmm...based on his track record with words (see "idiosyncratic"), i would have to choose the dictionary. And what i was saying about the rhetoric is that Butte himself has denied that this is a matter of rhetoric. Maybe its time for another definition here:
rhet·o·ric __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(rtr-k)
n.
1. a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

Why would he need to use language persuasively if his point is that it is a proof and not a "proof to you"? wouldnt a "proof to you" be rhetoric? Yes? so that means that he is personally dismissing the notion that it is an argument of rhetoric. And about my education in logic, i was saying that i have read up on logical principles beyond what i learned in 8th grade, online and in books. That is why my education is not that limited. I was saying that more to make my point that this is a simple logical issue, as stated by Butte, that is being blown out of proportion. And i have read every thread posted, twice actually. It was painful to my eyes. I didn't learn anything yet, as there was so much BS tossed about (especially from your corner of the ring) that its hard to discern which threads are legitimate. perhaps a 3rd reading will tell me that.

WHOA! wait a minute. Surfing through your other posts, i found this in the "mathematical proof that God exists" thread, DrNihili:
Originally posted by drnihili
98 percent of this thread is worthless. But on the subject of mathematical proofs of god, you might take a look at Godel's.

Maybe you should practice what you preach, and learn from people, rather than saying they're all stupid. and I'M THE HYPOCRITE?!?!?!?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay drnihili, maybe you can explain it to me in terms of logic. How is the first line of his logic valid?

He offers:

If something exists, there is a god.

For that to be true, it should be representative of a known relationship or a given fact somewhere.



The first line isn't valid, the argument is valid. "Valid" simply means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. It has nothing to do whether whether the premises are true or justified.

You are correct that the premise has not been justified. You're correct to ask that it be justified. But all that goes beyond the scope of Butte's primary claim. His primary claim is that the argument is valid. He is correct in that claim. His secondary claim is that a proof is nothing more than a valid argument. That is the claim where he is wrong, however it's not a matter of logic but rather of semantics.

If Butte had claimed that his first premise was logically true, then he would have potentially made a logical error. (Something is logically true if it is implied by the laws of logic.) But he didn't claim that. He just claimed that the premise was true. Whether a sentence is true or false is not typically a matter for logic to decide. Logic is only concerned with which sentences follow from which others.

[caveat: I'm ignoring some issues in logical theory here in the interests of simplicity.]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
[B!!!! do my eyes deceive me?!?!?! how can this be! Either the dictionary is wrong, or Drnihili is...hmm...based on his track record with words (see "idiosyncratic"), i would have to choose the dictionary. And what i was saying about the rhetoric is that Butte himself has denied that this is a matter of rhetoric. Maybe its time for another definition here:


Yep, the dictionary is wrong. That happens a lot actually. The people who write dictionaries are not experts in the fields of study. As a result errors creep in. The dictionary may or may not have been wrong about idiosyncratic. Since you didn't post the definition, I can't tell whether the fault iw with the dictionary or your interpretation of it.

Why would he need to use language persuasively if his point is that it is a proof and not a "proof to you"? wouldnt a "proof to you" be rhetoric? Yes? so that means that he is personally dismissing the notion that it is an argument of rhetoric. And about my education in logic, i was saying that i have read up on logical principles beyond what i learned in 8th grade, online and in books. That is why my education is not that limited. I was saying that more