Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 192

Thread: Therefore, there is a god

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    1,626
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,214
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    It is good enough that a god here be understood as whatever answers prayers and that we call "god". Good enough both for the purpose of doing logic here and as a proxy for whatever people call God that they think answers their prayers.
    An alien running a simulation might answer prayers, and most people would not call it a god, but an alien. This may well increase the overall level of confusion, which is high already just because of the type of argument you're trying to make. But I'll assume for the sake of the argument that you're right, and in particular, I will assume for the sake of the argument that any agent that answers prayers is a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    ???

    You see no reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if you pray then your prayers will be answered?!
    I said no good reason. There is a reason, for those being confused by your argument - namely, their confusion.
    And you're again obscuring what I had clarified with my rendering of the premises. It leads to confusion for most people.

    Now to address your point with the confusing language and all, here's my reply (assume parenthesis if needed; I already gave a clear version, but you went back to the obscure one):

    As long as Speakpigeon does not pray, in the sense of material implication, the statement "If Speakpigeon prays, then X" is true in virtue of being a conditional with a false antecedent, and for every X that makes grammatical sense in this context. Thus, again as long as the statement "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true, the statement "It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is false. Hence, the statement "If Y, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is a conditional with a false consequent, and as such, it is false unless Y is also false (and that holds for all Y that makes grammatical sense here). Again, remember I'm holding that "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true.
    So, in particular (and as always, as long as the statement "Speakpigeon does not pray" is true), the statement "If there is no god, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered." is true if and only if there is a god. Given that I have no good reason to believe that there is a god, and given that I'm well aware of the fact that the statement "If there is no god, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered." is true if and only if there is a god (again, always holding true that Speakpigeon does not pray), obviously I see no good reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered.

    The "???" in your statement (quoted above), and the use of italics in "You see no reason to think that " suggest that somehow you are surprised that I make such a statement, and that my statement is somehow controversial. It is not. What I'm saying is obvious. Well, it is obvious to me, but I think it is also obvious to you, so busted! (if you actually don't get what the problem is, sorry, I thought you were just pulling readers' legs; if you were actually pulling readers' legs as is my impression, well again busted! ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

    Please take some more time to think about it...
    Please, do not patronize me. I'm not one of the readers whose legs you can pull with this sort of argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    And that would be wrong. There are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true. Something you could check easily enough for yourself.
    No, what I said is that if P2 is true (i.e., if S2 is false, i.e., if you do not pray), then P1 is false (i.e., the antecedent is true because there is no god, and the consequent is false because it follows from ¬S2 that ¬(S2->S3) is false, as explained. Of course, that was under my definition of "god". Given that you reject the definition, I have no idea whether P1 is false. What's a god?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    But P1 does assumes there is no god and still there are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true..
    P1 on its own does not assume that there is no god (it's a material conditional; you stipulated that this is propositional logic); else, what are you saying? If you're using counterfactual conditional, please use subjunctive as required). But P1 and P2 together imply that there is a god. Hence, clearly, either there is a god, or P1 is false, or P2 is false. But P2 is true (I accept that you do not pray). Hence, either there is a god or P1 is false. Under my definition of "god", I would argue that there is no god, and thus that P1 is false (again, always assuming P2 is true).


    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Whatever answers prayers and that we call "god" would do.
    I don't think there is anything I would call "god" other than perhaps God if he existed (i.e., an omnimax agent), and there are possible prayer-answerers that most people would not call "god". But whatever, I'm making the assumptions favorable to your case, since your main problem lies elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    With that assumption and two cases where both P1 and P2 are true, I'm sure all atheists should object.

    Please, look again at the conjunction "P1 and P2".
    Please, look again at my reply. And my new reply too.
    I see no good reason to think P1 is true, granting that P2 is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

    Still, I'm not sure there's anything to argue about since you've admitted the thing is valid.
    Of course, I did not admit it's sound. In fact, I argued that it wasn't, though it was under another definition of "god". Under your concept (assuming for the sake of the argument that there is such a concept, that is), then I don't know whether it's sound. But I will argue that you have provided no good reason to even suspect that P1 is true (and obviously, clearly, transparently, given that P2 is true, P1 is true if and only if there is a god, so if you want to argue that P1 is true, you would have to argue independently that there is a god; statements like "???" or "Please take some more time to think about it..." will not do, and are out of place (I'm not the sort of reader you can confuse like that! I'm the one busting your leg-pulling. ).

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member Wiploc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,591
    Archived
    14,058
    Total Posts
    15,649
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god
    Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
    Affirming the consequent innit?

    Imagine a prosecutor arguing thusly: "If the defendant killed him, he would be dead. And he is dead, so the defendant killed him."

  3. Top | #13
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,350
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,389
    Rep Power
    71
    If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

    Weak, weak, weak.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    5,572
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,234
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?

    If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?
    Sure, this one seems good to me but it's also a different statement from the one in the OP. I repeat it bellow for your convenience if you want to try and see where's the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.
    Sure, at least to the extent that people would make prayers and that those would be of a kind that once answered you could notice the difference. People make whatever prayers they like and not necessarily those you think they do.

    Still, I guess you might be right. God willing, you would be able to try a little prayer of your own and check the result for yourself. Nothing to do with logic, that, just God willing.

    Still, again, your statement here is very different from the one in the OP and the truth of one doesn't bear on the truth of the other.
    EB

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

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    5,572
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,234
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

    Weak, weak, weak.
    Weak? Sorry, this is a logical formula and it is either true or false, not weak or strong. This isn't a piece of rhetoric. It happens to be a logical truth and the conclusion that there is a god is in all appearances somewhat vexatious. I'm asking you how we could possibly do away with it.

    To say it's weak it as good as saying logic itself is weak and that therefore we should not use it to reason or if we use it we will always reason weakly. Well, at least that's a thought but I don't think that's what you want to argue.

    Your own example is good, congratulation, I think. Still, it's not going to sound problematic to anyone that there should be a tomorrow tomorrow. So, it doesn't compare on substance even if the logic seems the same at first glance.

    You might have a point but it's not clear to me that you do. Not explicit enough.

    So, weak or strong? Try some more or are you spent?
    EB

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    5,572
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,234
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiploc View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god
    Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
    Affirming the consequent innit?

    Imagine a prosecutor arguing thusly: "If the defendant killed him, he would be dead. And he is dead, so the defendant killed him."
    No, nothing in common obviously.

    The sentence is a logical truth. There's no two ways about it unless you looked at your own assumptions.
    EB

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    4,495
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    The sentence is a logical truth.
    Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    5,572
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,234
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    The sentence is a logical truth.
    Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?
    How so exactly?

    Intuition is fine but you have to explain what's wrong with this statement, if anything. It won't be good enough for you merely to make suggestions as to what might be wrong there. Anyone can do that and it doesn't look good.

    I'm not saying your intuition is wrong but it's a fact that the statement is a logical truth (or tautology, in modern parlance). If you want to claim otherwise, which I would understand, you'll have to support your claim with something much more substantial than mere suggestions.
    EB

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    5,572
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,234
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    If there is no tomorrow, then it is not true that if I hope to awake tomorrow and become a billionaire, my waking hope will be answered. I did not hope for that, therefore there is a tomorrow.

    Weak, weak, weak.
    Yes, your spot on, your own "tomorrow" argument is really, really weak since nobody expects tomorrow not to come.

    "There is a god" is clearly something else entirely. It's strong because the conclusion is startling, because it's counter-intuitive, at least to most people.

    It's something to disagree with this argument on intuitive grounds, we can all do that, but it's something else entirely to identify the problem, if any.

    So, obviously, you have your intuition about it, but just as clearly you can't argue your view. You don't even try, which is telling. So, definitely weak, weak, weak.
    EB

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    4,495
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    The sentence is a logical truth.
    Says who? The conclusion literally does not appear to follow. Seems to me it's a fallacy in at least one way (affirming the consequent) and a non-sequitur?
    How so exactly?

    Intuition is fine but you have to explain what's wrong with this statement, if anything. It won't be good enough for you merely to make suggestions as to what might be wrong there. Anyone can do that and it doesn't look good.

    I'm not saying your intuition is wrong but it's a fact that the statement is a logical truth (or tautology, in modern parlance). If you want to claim otherwise, which I would understand, you'll have to support your claim with something much more substantial than mere suggestions.
    EB
    I haven't a clue what you're on about and I doubt you have either. The conclusion does not follow. The second part is a non-sequitur and the two statements together are arguably a fallacy (affirming the consequent). How much simpler can it be put? And since the second part is not a way of restating the first part, it's not a tautology either. And nor is logical truth necessarily a tautology, as you seem to imply. You're all over the shop.

    Also, if you want to assert it's a logical truth, then you need to explain why or how it is. In fact as the thread starter and the person making the first claim (that it is a logical truth) the onus is arguably on you in the first instance.




    Let X = no god
    Let Y = pray
    Let Z = prayer answered

    What you have is :

    1. If X and Y then not Z.
    2. If not Y then X.

    The second statement does not follow from the first.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-08-2018 at 03:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •