Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/16/02 10:39am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Like This" on 04/15/02 3:58pm
>I've read your post thoroughly Wade, but I feel it
>doesn't really address the central issue that is most
>important to your argument and for the sake of brevity
>I'm going to post what I feel is the main point you
>are overlooking, which ties into the rest.
>
>There are things in logic sometimes referred to as
>"primitive concepts". These things are to be accepted
>as is, without question for the sake of the logical
>argument at stake.
>
>For example, I'll use your sentence of "If I jump off
>a cliff, I'll be dead." I've assumed several primitive
>concepts here. First of all, I've assumed that there
>is such a thing as a cliff, and such a thing as death.
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. 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.
>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.
>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.
>So, the "proof" you put forward is only proof granting
>the first premise, if. We could construct a similar
>argument for the negative if God doesn't exist.
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.
>You seem to treat logic as though it is decisive in
>matters such as these, but in actuality logic is only
>as useful as the primitive concepts it rests upon. We
>could argue that if the Easter Eunny exists then this
>this and that, and logically have a valid argument,
>even though we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't
>exist.
I’d like to see how you can prove the Easter Bunny using formal logic. I really don’t think you can.
>As it is impossible to show that the conditional If
>God exists is false just as it is impossible to show
>that If God doesn't exist is false, this argument
>would be valid, but not necessarily applicable to
>life, just as our Easter Bunny wouldn't be.
“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. 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.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 