THE GOD SYLLOGISM

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: THE GOD SYLLOGISM

Certainly sounds alot like this:...

Yep, it does superficially sound like that, but it's not. My argument was inductive, not deductive.

And please don't be concerned about my patience. With people who remain polite and reasonable as you have, I have vast reserves of patience. And interest. You're obviously no fool, you're a thoughtful and intelligent person who doesn't always agree with me, and I cannot express how much I value that. If I talk only to people who always agree with me, I'll never learn anything, never be intellectually challenged, never doubt my own wisdom, such as it is... I'll be an insufferable A-hole in fact, and that's certainly not what I want to be. I need contact with people like you. All of us who think we're pretty smart do. That's why I came to CC in the first place.

Glad to know ya ol' buddy, I wish you well.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Atheism is not an argument. It is the begining of the argument. From there you can speculate on the existance of a deity. You do not start with assumption that a deity exists, then try to disprove it. Nor do you start with the assumption that a deity does not exist, then attempt to disprove the deity that you say does not exist.

The first is faulty logic, and the second just plain idiocy.

 

[Finder]

is it not a conclusion as well LittleRunningGag? As you speculate from reason that there is no god for you can not prove in it's exsistance, do you not conclude that there is no god as well?

 

[LittleRunningGag]

No. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of a belief in any deity. Therefore, it does not require an assertion.

It is the default, if you will, from which we make our arguments. It is illogical to start from the premis that god exists because you cannot prove a negative. Thus, you must start from the position that god does not exist and work from there.

Look at it another way. Take a person that has never been exposed to the concept of a deity. How would that person go about disproving god? She wouldn't. She would assume that god does not exist until evidence to the contrary was presented.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: THE GOD SYLLOGISM

No. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of a belief in any deity. Therefore, it does not require an assertion.

It is the default, if you will, from which we make our arguments. It is illogical to start from the premis that god exists because you cannot prove a negative. Thus, you must start from the position that god does not exist and work from there.

Look at it another way. Take a person that has never been exposed to the concept of a deity. How would that person go about disproving god? She wouldn't. She would assume that god does not exist until evidence to the contrary was presented.

But thats making the assumption that a person who has not been subject to society and or the concept of Deism, will not develop their own notion of deity, god, nature/sun worship or a scoup of other mysticisms.

The notion of Deity has been in human nature since the dawn of the human being. As far back as we can find the existence of human kind we find some sort of worship or reverence to a deity or mysticisms. So I would assert that it is not our "default" nor is it our natural place to start from.

 

[pastafarian]

I take issue with one small point concerning the God syllogisms: It is not question-begging to assume the existence of God before testing the rationality of such a belief. All you need to do is show that the existence of A leads to a logical contradiction to determine that A cannot be real.

This technique is commonly used in mathematical proofs. For example, in the proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, it is first assumed that root (2) can be expressed as a fraction in lowest terms and then it is shown that this same fraction must be divisible by 2. This logical contradiciton shows that a rational form of root(2) cannot exist.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: THE GOD SYLLOGISM

It is not question-begging to assume the existence of God before testing the rationality of such a belief.

Agreed, but it is question-begging to assume the existence of god when you're trying to make the case for belief.

 

[pastafarian]

Agreed, but it is question-begging to assume the existence of god when you're trying to make the case for belief.

Agreed.


I know this is the "Proof of God" version of Godwin's Law, but I can't resist. The inimitable Douglas Adams from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existance of God.
`The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
`"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
`"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly
vanishes in a puff of logic.
`"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
`Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of
dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small
fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book
"Well That About Wraps It Up For God".

:mrgreen:

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: THE GOD SYLLOGISM

But thats making the assumption that a person who has not been subject to society and or the concept of Deism, will not develop their own notion of deity, god, nature/sun worship or a scoup of other mysticisms.

It is not. You cannot just say, "Well, I think that they would have attempted to find a deity of some kind if they hadn't been exposed." The reason you see deities being established in the past is in response to the unexplained nature of their universe. It would not be the same now. We have explanations that supersede those questions.

Besides, it is just like trying to prove anything else. You have to start from the assumption that it doesn't exist. You then try and prove it from there. Just because it is popular to assume the existance of god, does not make it right. Just because you want to make that assumption, does not make it right.

If I were to propose the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would we start from the assumption that it exists and work from there? No, we would start from the assumption that, without proof, the IPU does not exist. We would then argue from there.

This is rational, this is the argumentative method. If you want to use rational thinking, you have to use all of it. You cannot just pick and choose. It doesn't work that way.

 

[jimmoyer]

That was a nice post, Dexter and I agree this board
is one of the best on the planet. There might
be better ones somewhere, but I haven't found them.

I'd like to reiterate, that this board has the best
design pleasing to the eye, free of clutter, just
the right size type, and a placement of options
and commands easily and intuitively visible.

On top of that we got the content coming
from very intelligent and knowledgeable people
of all stripes (except black) and pretty funny
stuff too, and women, a gender lacking on many
boards.



I'd just like to generally conclude
that logic is insufficient to prove or disprove the
existence of God.

What logic does well, however,
is make ourselves more aware of they way we reason
over this subject.

Dexter, however, comes close to saying logic can
can prove or disprove the existence of a God.

I gotta follow up on some of the recent interesting
points later.

I'll be arnoldschwarzenegger back.