Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:19 am
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
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
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.
Cheers,
Hugh
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 NOT false?
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 is true.
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.
If you know that the argument is valid,
But I do NOT know if YOUR argument is even valid, let alone sound.
So far you have NOT shared a definition for what the word 'God' refers to. Although this has been clearly asked for.
If you do NOT clearly express what you are talking about to others, then what you are saying to them does NOT make sense.
Therefore, what you write is nonsensical and YOUR argument P is nothing more than nonsensical written words.
I have already expressed, 'Although the conclusion MIGHT be true', which to actually SHOW how it is true with a sound, valid argument is really very simple and easy indeed. However, YOUR argument P, in its current form, is NOT valid, NOR sound. Therefore, it is NOT proof of any thing.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm but you don’t know if premise 1 is true or not, then you don’t know that if the argument is sound or not, as you acknowledge.
As I have already explained, that is; IF we are to accept your OWN logic, then this is the outcome we arrive at.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm If you don’t know if the argument is proving something or not [you say you do not know], isn’t that the same thing as saying that you don’t know that the argument is a proof and you don’t know that it isn’t a proof?
And, I will NEVER know if it is proof or not UNTIL you provide YOUR definition for what 'God' is.
You asked for the reason/s WHY your argument P is NOT proof of some thing. I have told you WHY NOT.
I have also informed you of HOW you could improve your chances of making your argument P valid and sound. If, however, you prefer to reject that offering and just continue on how you are now, then so be it. But you are certainly NOT proving any thing worthwhile nor substantial with what you are doing now.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pmIf attaching something such as “to me” is just another way of saying that you don’t know if the argument is a proof or not, this shows nothing about argument P.
Yes it does. By me stating: 'Your argument P is NOT a proof that God exists, to me' CLEARLY SHOWS SOME THING. What it SHOWS IS: 'Your argument P IS NOT a proof that God exists, to me'.
SEE those words CLEARLY SHOW some thing about your argument P.
I will state it again, just in case you missed it again, 'Your argument P IS NOT a proof of any thing, to me', other than of how absolutely necessary words NEED to be clearly defined, and THAT definition agreed upon and accepted BEFORE any argument can be a truly valid and sound argument.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm The question in the opening post of this thread is,
“If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?”
Okay.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pmThe fact that you don’t know if it is a proof or not, shows nothing about whether or not the conditions on soundness/proof have been satisfied.
But I do KNOW that it is NOT a proof to me. You can add the "or not" in if you like if that helps you feel better about yourself. But the fact IS your argument P is NOT proof that God exists, for reasons ALREADY GIVEN.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
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.
About your remark “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.”, this remark seems inconsistent with what I take you to have implicitly acknowledged.
At least you are open and honest enough to see and admit that the "inconsistency" that seems to appear, to you, is a result of what you, yourself, are doing, that is; making assumptions/interpretations of some thing that may NOT have even happened.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm For the argument to be a sound argument, nothing has to be shown about the premises, nothing has to be proved about the premises, you don’t have to be convinced that the premises are true—the premises just have to be true.
For any premise to 'just have to be true' HAS TO BE SHOWN FIRST.
Of course a premise MIGHT be true FOR YOU. But if a premise is true FOR YOU ONLY, then that premise is NOT true, FOR OTHERS.
The only real reason to express/share an argument is to SHOW some thing. If, however, the premises are true FOR ONLY the speaker/writer, then what other purpose is there to express/share that "argument" with others?
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm Of course, in order to show/prove/convince you that the argument is sound, the truth of one or more of the premises might have to be demonstrated to you.
What do you mean by 'might have to be demonstrated to you'.
If you WANT to present and SHOW a sound argument, then you WILL HAVE TO demonstrate, to me anyway, the TRUTH of ALL premises.
Have fun TRYING TO present a sound argument, in order to prove some thing, WITHOUT first demonstrating the TRUTH of ALL the premises.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm Before any attempt to show that premise 1 in argument P is true could be undertaken [any attempt that had a chance of being viewed as successful, that is], it would have clear as to what it takes to prove something so that we don’t get into this same [tangential] line of questioning if a proof of premise P is offered, a line of questioning such as “in your attempt to produce a sound argument that God exists, you have to prove that the first premise of that argument is true That is, a line of questioning that starts with nothing more than, “You have to prove that the proof of one of the premises in your first proof is true”, is to be stopped before it gets started.
What do you WANT me/us to do?
Just ACCEPT that ALL of your arguments will be valid, sound arguments from now on, full stop?
If you can NOT prove what you are saying, then I suggest do NOT expect any one to accept what you say, or better still do NOT say any thing.
Considering what you just wrote here it comes across as very hypocritical and/or contradictory to also write; “If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?” I tell you WHY it is NOT proof, then you suggest NOT to question you.
Also, the effort you put into ASSUMING the above, and then writing out what you have here, could have been better spent in coming up with some sort of reasonable definition for what 'God' actually IS or at least COULD BE.
Either you can define what 'God' is and show how that definition would have to always exist when some thing exists or you can NOT. If you ever do write anything regarding this, then I will decide if it makes sense or not. Until then I suggest it is better for you NOT to ASSUME any thing prior.
Hugh Nose wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
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.
[my emphasis-- Hugh]
Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P
is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.
Cheers,
Hugh
I am unsure if this talking to yourself here helps or hinders you, but the assumptions you are making and the conclusions that you are jumping to are utterly and completely WRONG.
What I do KNOW, for sure, is YOUR argument P, without clarification, does NOT prove that God exists at all.