Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#101  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 3:03 pm

You said that just because an argument is simple doesn't make it wrong, as long as the "formulation" is completely valid.

People highlighted that this is a meaningless statement and not a good defence of your argument, some people have drawn up their own false arguments to assist demonstrating this simple fact.
Last edited by Ihavenofingerprints on May 17, 2012 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#102  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:03 pm

God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#103  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:10 pm

amkerman wrote:Shrunk your first premise is not sound. It is an impossibility. If god exists he is a square circle is only possible if square circles can exist. If you then go on to say square circles cant exist 1 is not logically coherent. Do you agree?


Again, your problem only exists if you have a prior commitment to the existence of God. If you accept that it is possible God does not exist, which is the only rational position from which to start this discussion, then my premise 1 is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing impossible about God not existing because the only way he could exist is if he was a square circle, and square circles cannot exist.
Last edited by Shrunk on May 17, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#104  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 3:11 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:No, this is either a grave misunderstanding or this is blatant equivocation.

We aren't saying Shrunk's argument is true. We are saying it is logically sound. Which it is, just like your argument might be.

Whether or not the premises are true is irrelevant to whether or not the argument is logically sound. You were defending your argument before by claiming it is logically sound, and we are just pointing out that means nothing. (because any stupid argument can be logically sound)

Like someone said earlier, go and ask a theist logician or philosopher if you don't believe us.


Listen. Premis 1 and premise 2 cannot both live in the same universe.

The argument:

All dogs are black

All dogs are not black

All dogs are not black

Is not valid.


Wrong (about Shrunk's logic). His first premise isn't a restrictive statement. It is a conditional statement. His logic syntax is valid.


If a dog is all-black then that dog is all-white

All-White can't be all-black

Therefore the dog is not all-black.

This is a perfectly analogous argument. It is ridiculous logic. 1 is simply and clearly impossible given 2. The premise itself. Not the conclusion. It isn't even necessarily a false premise. It's impossible.

If it weighs 100kg it must have no weight
Things that have no weight can't weigh 100kg
It doesn't weigh 100 kg.

Profound
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#105  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:18 pm

amkerman wrote:
If a dog is all-black then that dog is all-white

All-White can't be all-black

Therefore the dog is not all-black.

This is a perfectly analogous argument. It is ridiculous logic. 1 is simply and clearly impossible given 2. The premise itself. Not the conclusion. It isn't even necessarily a false premise. It's impossible.

If it weighs 100kg it must weigh 1kg
Things that weigh 1 kg can't weigh 100kg
It doesn't weigh 100 kg.

Profound


Wrong, your premise 1 and premise 2 contradict each other. That's not the case in mine.

In mine, premise 2 determines whether the condition for God's existence stated in premise one is met in reality. They don't contradict each other. My argument is valid, yours are incoherent.



I can't believe how difficult you are finding this.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#106  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:19 pm

@Amkerman... fail. read my subsequent posts which address this exact point. Premises exist independent of other premises.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#107  Postby Nostalgia » May 17, 2012 3:20 pm

Just to point out ... kilograms are a measurement of mass, not weight. It is quite easy for something that is 100kg to be weightless in free-fall. :coffee:
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
User avatar
Nostalgia
 
Posts: 9264
Age: 32
Male

Country: Earth
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#108  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:21 pm

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1319553

I just want to know how a goddamn carrot created the universe!? :coffee:
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#109  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 3:25 pm

Simply stunning @shrunk. The arguments are analogous. That you can't see the contradiction in your first premise is simply due to language. You conditioned God's existence as being that which cannot exist, namely, a square circle. That you then go on to explicitly state that square circles can't exist might be confusing you.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#110  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:28 pm

For the nth time, premises are valid independent of other premises. And for the nth time as well, they are not contradictory. One is a conditional statement and one is an regular statement.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#111  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:28 pm

Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#112  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:30 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:For the nth time, premises are valid independent of other premises. And for the nth time as well, they are not contradictory. One is a conditional statement and one is an regular statement.


To elaborate further, they can only be contradictory if the conditional statement is resolved to one or the other case. If it isn't, which it isn't until the deductive logic is applied to it via the second premise, then it isn't contradictory with the second premise - as independent premises.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#113  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:33 pm

amkerman wrote:Simply stunning @[color=#CC0000][b]shrunk.[/b][/color] The arguments are analogous. That you can't see the contradiction in your first premise is simply due to language. You conditioned God's existence as being that which cannot exist, namely, a square circle. That you then go on to explicitly state that square circles can't exist might be confusing you.


Umm, no. There is nothing in premise 1 that states whether or not a square circle can exist, only that if God exists, he must be one.

Are you under the impression that the validity of an argument depends on whether its premises are supported by evidence from outside the argument? Perhaps that's your problem. For instance, is this argument valid?

    If the number 3 is integrally divisible by 2, it is an even number.

    The number 3 is integrally divisible by 2.

    Therefore the number 3 is an even number.
Last edited by Shrunk on May 17, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#114  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:36 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?


To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?

If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.

Now if we word it like this:

    If God exists, he is a carrot.

    If carrots exist, God exists.

    Carrots exist.

    Therefore, God exists (and is a carrot).

Maybe that will be a bit easier for poor amkerman to grasp.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#115  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:39 pm

Shrunk wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?

To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?

If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.


Exactly. Now if only we could get Amkerman to understand that about his version, then we could put this thread to bed!
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#116  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 3:41 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
amkerman wrote:Shrinks argument is:

1. If god exists he is something which cannot exist. (not valid)


How do you know, in this example, that he can't exist? A premise is it's own entity in a logic statement. It's validity as a premise is not contingent upon any other premises. That's how deductive logic works.


B/c square circles can't exist.

You can't define something in terms of that which it is impossible for it to be. I don't get the point you are trying to make about the carrot. Please put carrot into my argument everywhere you see consciousness. I doubt it will hold up.

You are failing to consider the argument given by shrunk rev. He is simply defining square circle in his second premise. That definition is valid for any instance of "square circle" in the argument. He has defined square circle as that which cannot exist. So premise 1 becomes "if god exists he is that which cannot exist". It is internally contradictory. It is not valid. It is logically incoherent. I don't mean to ignore you I can only repond so quickly.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#117  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:42 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?

To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?

If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.


Exactly. Now if only we could get Amkerman to understand that about his version, then we could put this thread to bed!


OK, I get you. Of course, I'm not the one who really needs to get you, am I?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#118  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 3:45 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?

To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?

If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.


Exactly. Now if only we could get Amkerman to understand that about his version, then we could put this thread to bed!


I don't think this is on topic as I have still not made an argument for the existence of God, only the belief in the existence of subject-independent consciousness, which I have defined as God.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#119  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:49 pm

amkerman wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
amkerman wrote:Shrinks argument is:

1. If god exists he is something which cannot exist. (not valid)


How do you know, in this example, that he can't exist? A premise is it's own entity in a logic statement. It's validity as a premise is not contingent upon any other premises. That's how deductive logic works.


B/c square circles can't exist.

You can't define something in terms of that which it is impossible for it to be. I don't get the point you are trying to make about the carrot. Please put carrot into my argument everywhere you see consciousness. I doubt it will hold up.

You are failing to consider the argument given by shrunk rev. He is simply defining square circle in his second premise. That definition is valid for any instance of "square circle" in the argument. He has defined square circle as that which cannot exist. So premise 1 becomes "if god exists he is that which cannot exist". It is internally contradictory. It is not valid. It is logically incoherent. I don't mean to ignore you I can only repond so quickly.


Oh, dear. Still struggling with the basics.

Your paraphrase of premise 1 is incorrect. In my original version, it is simply making the existence of God conditional on his being a square circle. That condition holds whether or not a square circle can exist. If it turns out a square circle cannot exist, then if follows that God cannot exist either. But that does not affect truth of the conditional statement that God can only exist if he does so as a square circle.
Last edited by Shrunk on May 17, 2012 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#120  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 3:51 pm

amkerman wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Why am I being ignored? And why is my god = a carrot argument not being taken seriously?

To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?

If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.


Exactly. Now if only we could get Amkerman to understand that about his version, then we could put this thread to bed!


I don't think this is on topic as I have still not made an argument for the existence of God, only the belief in the existence of subject-independent consciousness, which I have defined as God.


You cannot argue for a belief. I can believe a square circle exists, and can continue to do so no matter what argument you make. Just another of the very basic errors you are making here.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest