| Subject: Muddling a simple point |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/16/02 3:47pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Not like that." on 04/16/02 10:39am
>
>You appear to be confused about the meaning of
>conditional statements. Conditional statements don’t
>assume the existence of anything. For example, the
>statement, “If I jump off a cliff, I’ll be dead,”
>doesn’t actually assume cliffs and death exists.
Is that right? Then why not just say If I jump off a dromedary camel dandelions will sprout from my nose? Or how about, if I jump off a jluereghou I will ahouerewll? It doesn't make any sense to use a conditional about something that doesn't exist, just like it doesn't make any sense to use it on the Easter Bunny. This argument assumes those primitive concepts exist,(at least as a logical possibility) whether or not you wish to admit it, and that really is the bottom line.
But
>if they do, and if I jump off a cliff, then I’ll be
>dead. That’s all that the statement says. As an
>analogy, “If I get shot by death rays, I’ll be dead.”
>This statement is true, even if there are no such
>thing as “death rays.” But if they did exist,
>and I got shot by them, then I’ll be dead. That’s all
>that the statement says.
Those are two conditionals coupled. If I get shot by death rays, I'll be dead is not the same as saying if there are such a thing as death rays and I get shot by one, I will be dead. Predicate logic is very picky about this sort of distinction, and I'm surprised you've resorted to semantics within logic to muddy the point.
>
>
>>In the same vein, your first statement of "If there is
>>a God he exists necessarily" assumes that God exists.
>
>As I explained above, that does not logically follow.
>The statement just says that if repeat,
>IF God exists, he exists necessarily. God
>doesn't have to exist for this statement to be correct.
Why would you issue an If God exists statement if he didn't exist? I don't issue statements about my purple speckled knee high grasshopper bong hitting herbivore because there isn't one. I don't offer statements like if there is a purple speckled knee high grasshopper bong hitting herbivore then he exists necessarily because such a statement is absolutely meaningless. It doesn't make sense logically to talk about something that doesn't exist if by no other reason than its total lack of meaning.
>
>>If he doesn't exist, why bother making a conditional
>>about him in the first place?
>
>As a thought experiment perhaps. But the reasons of
>forming the statement are irrelevant to its
>truthfulness. That is, the statement can be true
>regardless of the reason it was formed. A monkey
>could randomly type the statement and it can still be
>correct.
It could, but why not talk about my spaced out grasshopper instead? There are a world of things that do not exist that we could sit around and form conditionals for, but it really doesn't matter because they are useless. There is no reason to assert them, and they don't prove anything unless you see my grasshopper, or unless you see God hanging about.
>
>Well, yes. You could input a statement “If God
>doesn’t exist, then he does not necessarily exist.” I
>would not and do not disagree with that statement.
>But you couldn’t use that statement by itself to
>disprove God’s existence.
Nor could you use the other to affirm God's existance, which brings us full circle back to the main point, why postulate a proof for something that doesn't exist in the first place?
>
>I’d like to see how you can prove the Easter Bunny
>using formal logic. I really don’t think you can.
I didn't say I could prove it. I said we could prove statements saying something to the effect of if the Easter Bunny exists then this this and that, and it would be the same sort of proof that you've conncocted for God. If the Easter Bunny exists, he exist necessarily, and so on and so on.
>
>“If God exists, he exists necessarily.” The
>justification that has been provided for that premise
>is that we define God as the greatest possible
>being.
But there isn't any reason to define God as the greatest possible being initially, and it still doesn't matter if God isn't real to begin with.
The greatest possible being would by
>definition have the greatest form of existence
>possible, i.e. necessary existence. So it logically
>follows that if God exists he exists necessarily. If
>you can’t give any reason to doubt this premise (or
>the second premise) then perhaps you should just bow
>out. I will not lose any respect for you if you did
>that.
Let me break this down for you very clearly so as there isn't any more resulting confusion. Your proof doesn't matter to a hill of beans if there isn't a God. It doesn't matter how you define God initially, it doesn't matter if you used symbolic logic, it doesn't matter if you use propostional calculus, it doesn't matter if you issue five hundred postulates about what should follow if God exists. You can build intricate towers of logic about if this and this, but it doesn't matter if the base assumption is wrong. I question your first premise If God exists, just as you would question a premise If God doesn't exist. Something can be valid and it can still be "wrong" if the base assumptions are wrong. I can state very plainly that All black men are convicted of crimes. O.J. Simpson is a black man, therefore he was convicted of a crime and be perfectly logically valid, but it isn't sound because of the assumptions I have made nor is it true.
Hence, I don't know what you've hoped to accomplish with this tentative proof, but if your aim was to somehow prove God's existance with it, it falls miserably short. If it was to show that it can be made logically consistant, it does that, but so what? I can show belief in the easter bunny to be logically consistant using the same little tricks you've used, and it still wouldn't matter if the easter bunny didn't exist in the first place.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 