Hugh Nose wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
Logik wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:24 am
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:05 am
Either Hugh Nose is a resident of Delaware or Hugh Nose is a resident of Pennsylvania.
Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a redisent of London.
Logik is not a resident of London.
Therefore Logik is a resident of New York.
The conclusion is false. How can I tell? Because I don't live in either of those cities. So..
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
The conclusion is false. How is that possible?
The explanation is that the premises are false.
Because I don't live in New York or London!
The first time you posted this message, you said that the argument was invalid. I assume you have backed away from that claim. Perhaps you went back and re-read the excerpt from IEP
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
The premise is a false dichotomy.
You can call it a false dichotomy if you like, but the mere fact that it is a disjunction that does not mention all of the possibilities is not what makes it false. What makes it false is the fact that you don't live in New York or London. The statement, "Either Hugh Nose lives in Delaware or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania" is as much a false dichotomy as "Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a redisent of London", yet it is true- I do in fact live in Pennsylvania.
One of us does indeed need instruction and one of us does indeed need to read more carefully. The audience can decide who.
I am glad that you brought this last sentence up. i, an audience participant, have decided that;
If you are going to say that what makes the premise Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a resident of London
false, is the fact that logik is NOT a resident of either, then i will now ask you;
How is your premise Either nothing exists or God exists
In fact are you even trying to suggest that that premise is true? Or, did you just write it for some other reason?
See, I can ask logik if they are a resident of either or none, and if I get an honest reply, then I will KNOW if the premise is true or false. However, how do you KNOW if the premise Either nothing exists or God exists
is true or false?
Also, if we are to accept that your OWN logic of; "If I don't know whether or not eh first premise is true or false, then I don't know if the arguments are sound arguments or not." is correct, then to KNOW if God is proved, with an argument, then we would need to know if your premise Either nothing exists or God exists
You asked, If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?
My response is, The reason argument P is NOT a proof that God exists, to me, is because I do NOT know if the premise; Either nothing exists or God exists
is true, or false. Therefore, I do NOT know if argument P is a sound argument or not. If I do NOT know if an argument is sound or not, then I will NOT know if the argument is actually proving some thing or not.
Quite simple really.
And, as I am still on the same issue as I pointed out to you in my first response, to you, which you subsequently ignored, I will repeat it again; For YOUR argument to be a sound, valid argument you would have to first SHOW Who/What 'God' IS, AND, also prove that THAT/Thing HAS TO exist whenever something exists.
Now are you suggesting/stating that your first premise is true?
If yes, then define what 'God' is, and then prove that that definition of 'God' must ALWAYS exist whenever something exists. Until you do that, then your argument P is NOT proof that God exists. For the reasons I have given here above, and in my first response to you here in this thread.
If, however, your answer is no to this question here, then that is fine.