If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:21 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:13 pm
But what if my monitor exists, but God doesn't? So P1 is false. :)
That is a good point.
Thus,
  • P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
    P2. Something is proven to exists but there is no proofs God exists
    Therefore, 3. God does not exist.
It would be simpler,
  • Whatever exists must be proven and justified.
    there is no proofs God exists
    Therefore God does not exist.
Gobbledegook! :D

Cheers,

Hugh

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:37 pm

I don't know what Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes or Veritas A are referring to when they speak of "God" because nobody has an ostensive definition of "God" and so it's entirely possible that each of them had a different conception of "God". It is entirely possible that you and VA have different conceptions of “God” and are talking right past each other none the wiser. So far VA has been unwilling to be scrutinised on his conception of "God" so he is as good as being dead - like Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, whom I can't interrogate either.
A perusal of the history of Western philosophy, i. e., of Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and others, and the various figures, both historical and contemporary, who have examined, supported, criticized,…, their efforts shows that these people all refer to the God who gave Moses the commandments, the God who spoke to Job from a whirlwind,…, and they are offering “natural theology” arguments for this God. Their understanding of the characteristics of God gives God the following characteristics: All-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of the world, worship-worthy…]. While they may have differences over the understanding of the characteristics mentioned [contemporary Philosophy of Religion classes often spend time on the literature addressing these differences], they are all talking about the same person, God, the person who helped Moses at the Red Sea. If one can show that the understanding of one [or more] of the characteristics one of them attributes to God is incoherent, or otherwise mistaken, he can easily hold on to his demonstration of the existence of God by altering his understanding of the characteristic.
Such matters need to be tackled from first principles, interactively and using all the tools at our disposal.
I have no idea of what you mean with this remark. Please explain!
In order to get closer to understanding what you mean by "God" I need to tackle the metaphysical issues of being and existence separately, so that we can avoid tripping over ambiguity.

First there is the ontological problem. Things either exists or they are not things.
A “non-existing thing” is a semantic error - a non-sensical notion.
It may not be worth saying, but it depends on what you mean by “thing” and/or by “existing”. There are fictional people—Sherlock Holmes, for example. You probably know this, so just ignore the remark.
Rocks (note - plural!) exist.
Flowers exists.
Amoebas exist.
Cats exist.
Humans exist.
Beings exist.
The universe (note - singular!) is a collective noun for ALL things.
If we agree to the above taxonomy then a non-existent rock, flower, amoeba, human or being is an oxymoron. If it doesn't exist - it's not a thing!
I will agree that people can smell roses, examine an amoeba under a microscope, pet their cats, talk to other human beings, and observe some of the various characteristics of the universe. I will add to the list in the following way: “There is a positive integer between the number three and the number five. This integer is often denoted by the numeral, 4. [numeral- A figure, symbol, or group of figures or symbols denoting a number.; “There was a performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony at the Gordon Theater last night”; “Beethoven did compose a ninth symphony. As far as anyone now knows, there is not 12th Symphony from Beethoven”; “I can write out my thoughts on the importance of Philosophical Investigations on the whiteboard. My thoughts might be the same as yours, they might not be.” “My love for my wife has deepened over the years of our marriage. You won’t find anything close to love in me for the current POTUS”.
The general point is that the world/universe is full of all kinds of things. I have mentioned [above] just a few-- integers, numbers, symphonies, thoughts, love. I could add more statements that would refer to more, different [kinds of] things. Since I don’t know what you want to do with this, I will stop with these.
What we are yet to agree on are the following: Of all the things that exist - some things are beings, and some things are not beings. What are the inclusionary and exclusionary properties shared by all things you call "beings" ? Help me sort the following into two groups: beings and not-beings.
Are rocks beings?
Are flowers beings?
Are amoebas beings?
Are cats beings?
Are humans beings?
Once you answer that question then we can already make some deductions about your conception of God. Since you claim that God is a being, and beings exist then God shares some properties with beings.


You seem to be making heavy weather over the word “being”. How about if we just understand that the God referred to in argument P is the individual Anselm is talking about, the individual Aquinas is talking about, the individual Descartes is talking about, the individual that many contemporary philosophers of religion, Swinburne and Plantinga, for example, are talking about.

Cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:18 pm

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:37 pm
I have no idea of what you mean with this remark. Please explain!
I mean that any and all notions of "God" are conceptual first and foremost. And the mind is a big place - far bigger than the universe. So if we are to hone in on what phenomenon (psychological, physical or empirical) you or anyone calls 'God' and means by that word then we have to eliminate a whole lot of options while navigating the ambiguity and pitfalls of spoken language.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:37 pm
It may not be worth saying, but it depends on what you mean by “thing” and/or by “existing”. There are fictional people—Sherlock Holmes, for example. You probably know this, so just ignore the remark.
Sherlock Holmes exists. At first it existed in the mind of Arthur Conan Doyle, and as a consequence of that existence we have many books, novels, short stories and movies to show for it.

So lets just say that everything that can be experienced or conceptualized exists, or existed. Even if it existed only in a mind.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:37 pm
You seem to be making heavy weather over the word “being”. How about if we just understand that the God referred to in argument P is the individual Anselm is talking about, the individual Aquinas is talking about, the individual Descartes is talking about, the individual that many contemporary philosophers of religion, Swinburne and Plantinga, for example, are talking about.
Your strategy for coming to any sort of consensus is incredibly flawed.

Aequinas, Anselm and Descartes lived at different times, never spoke to each other. How do you even they are talking about the same entity/phenomenon/concept?

If you sat down two people on your couch at this very moment and asked them to agree on what "Love" is they are unlikely to come up with anything concrete. Why do you think coming to a consensus about "God" is any easier?

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:45 pm
What feedback are you expecting to receive exactly?

P1. Either nothing exists, or Hugh Nose was born on Mars.
P2. Something exists.
C. Therefore, Hugh Nose was born on Mars.

The argument is absurd because it can be used to prove anything. It's a truism.
I have no idea what you mean when you call the argument a truism—can you explain this, please!

Clearly you can’t mean that one can prove anything with a “sound argument”, since that is obviously false.
I assume you agree that argument P is a valid argument.

You cannot believe that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P.

Clearly one cannot prove that some conclusion is true with an unsound argument. But you haven’t done anything to show that argument P is unsound.

Is it that you think that sound arguments are not proofs? If this is what you think, what must be added to sound arguments to make them proofs? If this is not what you think, then ???

Cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:14 pm

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
I have no idea what you mean when you call the argument a truism—can you explain this, please!
Given the structure of your argument, anything you put after the comma in P1 is true.

In this case. You are from Mars.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly you can’t mean that one can prove anything with a “sound argument”, since that is obviously false.
I assume you agree that argument P is a valid argument.
I do not.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
You cannot believe that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P.
I do.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly one cannot prove that some conclusion is true with an unsound argument. But you haven’t done anything to show that argument P is unsound.
OK, Martian. What would convince you that the argument is invalid?

Your P1 is a false dichotomy. If you are to rely on classical logic, and if the law of excluded middle is to be considered, then the options need to be all-exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Why? Decision theory.

To say that "Apples are either red or they are yellow" is an invalid syllogism. Your decision-space is incomplete because you have left out green apples.

And so if I said "The apple I am holding is not red" does not allow you to make a conclusive deduction about the color of the apple that I am, in fact, holding. It could be yellow; or it could be green.

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:14 pm
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
I have no idea what you mean when you call the argument a truism—can you explain this, please!
Given the structure of your argument, anything you put after the comma in P1 is true.

In this case. You are from Mars.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly you can’t mean that one can prove anything with a “sound argument”, since that is obviously false.
I assume you agree that argument P is a valid argument.
I do not.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
You cannot believe that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P.
I do.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly one cannot prove that some conclusion is true with an unsound argument. But you haven’t done anything to show that argument P is unsound.
OK, Martian. What would convince you that the argument is invalid?

Your P1 is a false dichotomy. If you are to rely on classical logic, and if the law of excluded middle is to be considered, then the options need to be all-exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Why? Decision theory.

To say that "Apples are either red or they are yellow" is an invalid syllogism. Your decision-space is incomplete because you have left out green apples.

And so if I said "The apple I am holding is not red" does not allow you to make a conclusive deduction about the color of the apple that I am, in fact, holding. It could be yellow; or it could be green.
Do you really mean to say all of the things you say here? :D

Cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:48 pm

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:14 pm
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
I have no idea what you mean when you call the argument a truism—can you explain this, please!
Given the structure of your argument, anything you put after the comma in P1 is true.

In this case. You are from Mars.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly you can’t mean that one can prove anything with a “sound argument”, since that is obviously false.
I assume you agree that argument P is a valid argument.
I do not.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
You cannot believe that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P.
I do.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly one cannot prove that some conclusion is true with an unsound argument. But you haven’t done anything to show that argument P is unsound.
OK, Martian. What would convince you that the argument is invalid?

Your P1 is a false dichotomy. If you are to rely on classical logic, and if the law of excluded middle is to be considered, then the options need to be all-exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Why? Decision theory.

To say that "Apples are either red or they are yellow" is an invalid syllogism. Your decision-space is incomplete because you have left out green apples.

And so if I said "The apple I am holding is not red" does not allow you to make a conclusive deduction about the color of the apple that I am, in fact, holding. It could be yellow; or it could be green.
Do you really mean to say all of the things you say here? :D

Cheers,

Hugh
You doubt my ability to choose my own words?

Do you really mean to insinuate you are a mind reader?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:57 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:37 pm

You seem to be making heavy weather over the word “being”.

How about if we just understand that the God referred to in argument P is the individual Anselm is talking about, the individual Aquinas is talking about, the individual Descartes is talking about, the individual that many contemporary philosophers of religion, Swinburne and Plantinga, for example, are talking about.

Cheers,

Hugh
"Individual" ???
The above is delusional thinking, woo woo and Gobbledegook! :D

The above delusion is driven by existential psychology within one's brain/mind to soothe an existential crisis.

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:05 am

Validity and Soundness

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.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author's process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false:

Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

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. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth.
[from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ ]

Note the instance of a disjunctive syllogism—the first argument. Note also that the premises of an argument do not have to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:14 pm

Given the structure of your argument, anything you put after the comma in P1 is true.
If you mean that if the structure of an argument is “disjunctive syllogism”, then anything that is put after the comma in the first premise in

P1. Either nothing exists, or Hugh Nose was born on Mars.
P2. Something exists.
C. Therefore, Hugh Nose was born on Mars.,

Is true [it is the conclusion of the argument], you are simply mistaken. In addition to being a disjunctive syllogism, a valid argument form, the premises must be true. So, what is put after the comma in the first premise of an argument of this form will be true only if the first premise [along with the second premise] is true.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly you can’t mean that one can prove anything with a “sound argument”, since that is obviously false.
I assume you agree that argument P is a valid argument.
I do not.
You do not what? You do not mean that one can prove anything with a sound argument or you do not agree that argument P is a valid argument. If the latter then you are simply mistaken as the excerpt from the IEP shows.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
You cannot believe that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P.
I do.
What exactly do you think it shows? The fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion does not show that the first premise is false. If it were true, then the following argument would have something wrong with it also:

Argument A

Either Hugh Nose is a resident of Delaware or Hugh Nose is a resident of Pennsylvania.
Hugh Nose is not a resident of Delaware.
Therefore, Hugh Nose is a resident of Pennsylvania.

But Argument A is a disjunctive syllogism and a sound one at that, since it is valid and the premises are true. But if you believe, as you say you do, that the fact that you can produce a valid argument in the form of a disjunctive syllogism, with a false conclusion [or any conclusion you like] shows that there is something wrong with argument P, it will show that there is something wrong with Argument A. But there is nothing wrong with Argument A.

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:24 pm
Clearly one cannot prove that some conclusion is true with an unsound argument. But you haven’t done anything to show that argument P is unsound.
OK, Martian. What would convince you that the argument is invalid?
You are asking “What could show that a valid argument is invalid?”. The answer is "Nothing can show that a valid argument is invalid." One could, of course, show that an argument that is valid is unsound by showing that one or more of the premises is false. But you haven’t done that. You haven’t even attempted to do that.
Your P1 is a false dichotomy. If you are to rely on classical logic, and if the law of excluded middle is to be considered, then the options need to be all-exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Why? Decision theory.
Nowhere in classical logic does it say that the disjunctive premise in a disjunctive syllogism has to be a disjunction of all of the possible distinct alternatives. Look again at the excerpt from the IEP. Beyond that, even if P1 is, in some sense, a false dichotomy, being a false dichotomy is not inconsistent with being true. [Argument A, above]

One might urge a complaint such as yours if one thought that the first premise was being offered as a necessary [logical] truth, but it is not, nor does classical logic anywhere say that the disjunct in a disjunctive syllogism must be a necessary truth. I am not saying that you are saying that it is a necessary truth. I am just trying to figure out what point your remark is intended to make.

To say that "Apples are either red or they are yellow" is an invalid syllogism. Your decision-space is incomplete because you have left out green apples.


The first statement baffles me! “Apples are either red or they are yellow” is not a syllogism. Neither is the first premise of argument P, nor is the first premise of argument A, a syllogism.
And so if I said "The apple I am holding is not red" does not allow you to make a conclusive deduction about the color of the apple that I am, in fact, holding. It could be yellow; or it could be green.
You are right here, but I don’t know why you are offering this because it has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Unless…

Unless you are interpreting the first premise of Argument P as equivalent to a material implication,“If something exists, then God exists”, and then viewing the conditional statement as expressing an entailment relation between the antecedent and the consequent. Such an interpretation is completely gratuitous. I am not saying that this is what you are saying. Once again, I am just trying to understand what you are saying, since so much of it, to be charitable, appears to be irrelevant to anything that I have said.
You doubt my ability to choose my own words?
Do you really mean to insinuate you are a mind reader?
No, I do not doubt your ability to choose your own words, nor do I mean to insinuate that I am a mind reader. But given the oddity of your remarks against the background of the basic logic displayed in the IEP excerpt, I thought you might have simply “misspoken” at points in the post. Now it seems clear that you didn’t misspeak. But then… ???

Cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » 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 premise is a false dichotomy.
Last edited by Logik on Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:40 am, edited 5 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:27 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:05 am
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.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:05 am
Note also that the premises of an argument do not have to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
Seems you are tripping over reading comprehension.

I don't have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2763
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:54 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
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
Deduction pertains to that which is definitely true so all deductive arguments by default have to be true
There is therefore no such thing as a deductive argument with either false premises or a false conclusion

Also deductive arguments can only be sound not valid or invalid

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » 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.

Cheers,

Hugh

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:03 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:54 am
Hugh Nose wrote:
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
Deduction pertains to that which is definitely true so all deductive arguments by default have to be true
There is therefore no such thing as a deductive argument with either false premises or a false conclusion

Also deductive arguments can only be sound not valid or invalid
In order to be sound, a deductive argument must be valid.

Your quarrel here is merely over the use of the word "deduction" and its cognates, and it is not with me but with the IEP, and every other author of an introductory logic text that I know of. Whether one uses it the way they use it or the way you want to use it is of no philosophical importance.

Cheers,

Hugh.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:18 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
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.
Yes. It is. "Either Hugh Nose lives in Delaware or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania." is of the logical form A ∧ B

The sufficiency criteria for truth requires that either of the premises be true.

A B A ∧ B
0 0 ⇒ 0
0 1 ⇒ 1
1 0 ⇒ 1
1 1 ⇒ 1

Because "Logik lives in London" is false AND "Logik lives in New York" is false, the premise is false.

0 ∧ 0 ⇒ 0
Hugh Nose wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
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.
You are claiming that the premise is true. Therefore either A is true or B is true, but since you are well aware of your own residence one would wonder why you would say "Either Hugh Nose lives in Delaware or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania". Why the need for a syllogism to begin with? Are you uncertain as to your own location?

Also, why Delaware in particular?

You could have said "Either Hugh Nose lives in Oclahoma or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania".
You could have said "Either Hugh Nose lives in Chicago or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania"
You could have said "Either Hugh Nose lives in Canada or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania".
Last edited by Logik on Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests