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.

That's totally irrelevant to how logic works. Logic isn't contingent on facts or reality. It's contingent on deductive logic. I could make this statement:

Premise 1: God is a sldhhkjlsd

STOP! What's that you say? A "sldhhkjlsd" doesn't exist?

As I said, facts are irrelevant to a logical deduction. That premise 1 is a valid premise. Just as Shrunks premise 1 is a valid premise.

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.

Wasn't your argument:
God is consciousness
Consciousness exists
Therefore: God exists.

Why is asserting god is a carrot any more ridiculous than asserting that god is consciousness?

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.

And? That's what logic is. By defining a part of the first premise in the second premise, leads to the deduced conclusion of the logical structure. You're getting confused about the basics of logic. What you've described here is exactly how deductive logic works.

He has defined square circle as that which cannot exist. So premise 1 becomes "if god exists he is that which cannot exist".

It only does that when the logic statement is assessed. And because the first premise is a conditional, and the second solves that premise for a particular case, they are structurally valid. And that's the point that was being made many posts ago. Just because something is structurally valid (just like my carrot example) doesn't mean it is true.

Shrunk 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!

OK, I get you. Of course, I'm not the one who really needs to get you, am I?

Not to mention that, IF it was true, how would a carrot create the universe???

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.

So you've made an argument for the belief in the existence of god? And why are we to be impressed by this? This is trivial. We all know there are people who believe in the existence of god.

But to preempt your argument further, i am defining a carrot as god. Just getting in early for when you might actually do as the thread's title suggests.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
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?

Not to mention that, IF it was true, how would a carrot create the universe???

Or "objective consciousness" for that matter.

amkerman wrote:

Reality can be objective regardless of whether one's access to reality is objective or not. The reality is objective, the reference is subjective.

I have never argued against this. You keep misconstruing what the argument is.

If one believes they are referencing objective reality through consciousness they necessarily believe consciousness is objective.

No. This is just false.

Their reference is necessarily subjective. I.e. if I'm looking out my window and paying attention to a tree, nobody but me has access to the information of where my attention is, if Pete is looking out the same window at the same view, his attention might be on the Bench, Claire's attention might be on a squirrel.

The reference is what you can claim to be subjective, the reality you've told us nothing about at all.

A materialist will hold that that the reality is objective, i.e. that it displays properties like object permanence - objects behave exactly as they would if they had independent existence rather than only exist when you look at them; persistent behaviour under gravity - all objects accelerate towards the Earth; continuity - to get from A to B an object must traverse a course of points between A and B etc. etc.

It is not that I don't "get" your argument, it's that you're making a bald statement that is a non-sequitur. If one believes they are (subjectively) referencing objective reality through (subjective) consciousness they do not necessarily believe consciousness is objective.

amkerman wrote:If you believe consciousness is subjective you have no rational grounds for then believing that you are referencing an objective reality. It is logically incoherent.

Nope, and merely asserting this over and over without listening to or understanding why it's not the case is one of the most close minded types of post I've ever seen.

amkerman wrote:It is possibly case that there is an objective reality and consciousness is subjective and fails to reference. I might be a brain in a vat. This is an irrational belief given the almost complete intersubject agreement as to what constitutes reality.

The degree of accuracy is not the definition of subjective. Subjective means "varies from subject to subject". E.g. My favorite colour is Turquoise, Billy's is Blue, Andrew's is Red. Therefore favorite colour is subjective. Whereas the answer to "what is 2+2?" is not subjective "2+2=4" regardless of someone's knowledge of it. I have subjective access or reference to the world because my access doesn't match yours or anyone else's. You don't know what I'm seeing now, you don't know who my first kiss was with and I don't know these things about you, because our access is different, you can't access my memories, or my visual field, I can't access yours. They vary from person to person, they are subject dependent, i.e. subective.

However, dozens of people were at the party where I had my first kiss, it is (in principle) a matter of historical fact. It is objectively true that it happened. Similarly if you walked into this room, you could ascertain whether my claim that I can see a blue pen and a black pen is true or false, you can use your subjective reference to compare to mine and as many other people as possible, if they all match then we have good evidence that this objective model of pens on desks is accurate to some reasonable degree.

amkerman wrote: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.

Actually, it is. Look up the definition of valid:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

This argument is inconsistent. Since classical logic is explosive, any possible conclusion validly follows.

The argument is not sound, the argument is not consistent the argument is valid though. This is in contrast to your argument in the OP which is neither sound, nor valid, and of nebulous consistency.

-----

While I'm here I'd like to congratulate Shrunk for a series of excellent posts on p4-5 running up to this one. I thumbed them all up for being clear and correct. They point out a number of the direct errors Amkerman has made.

amkerman wrote:http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/1/14fti.htm

The link is correct (if not very clear). It doesn't support your claim though. I suggest you read the wiki entry and the SEP entry for more background if you want to understand the meaning of valid and invalid.

amkerman wrote: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.

They aren't. The logical forms are different:-

Shrunk wrote:

If God exists, he is a square circle.

A square circle cannot exist.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The logical form of this is (broadly speaking*):
A -> B
¬B
therefore ¬A

This is a valid argument of the form Modus Tollens.

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.

The logical form of this is:
A -> B
B -> ¬A
therefore ¬A

This is as written not a valid form. We could have applied Hypothetical syllogism to the two lines, to conclude A -> ¬A, which is a contradiction and then applied Reductio ad absurdum to it.

*Actually if one wanted to include mention of existence then one would need to use first order logic and include some intermediate steps and lemmas, but that is confusing and beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm sure Shrunk won't object to my essential paraphrasing of his argument.

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

It's as good as Amkerman's argument, and as far as I'm concerned is a suitable parody.

I hope you'll forgive me for not taking it seriously though.

Besides, the kitchen floor is dirty and not really suitable for prostrating myself before the vegetable rack.

rEvolutionist wrote:

amkerman wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
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.

So you've made an argument for the belief in the existence of god? And why are we to be impressed by this? This is trivial. We all know there are people who believe in the existence of god.

But to preempt your argument further, i am defining a carrot as god. Just getting in early for when you might actually do as the thread's title suggests.

Of course there are people who believe in the existence of God. As the argument concludes everyone who believes in an objective reality necessarily believes in the existence of God whether they perceive this belief or not. As I have stated in at least triplicate now I did not start this thread, a mod did. My initial post was an explanation of the argument of reformed epistemology in another thread, in response to a poster who wanted to know the argument for why a belief in God was fundamental. I have no interest in providing am argument for something that cannot be proven on logical or evidentially substantiated grounds, which is precisely what it seems you expect me to do or think I am currently attempting to do.

Reformed epistemology (that belief in God is fundamental):

1. All knowledge/experience/perception/observation/understanding/measurement of (B) reality is dependent on (A) consciousness.
2. A cannot prove the truth (objectivity: subject independence) of B without proving the truth of A (identity theory of truth)

C1. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of reality without proving the subject-independence of consciousness

3. A cannot prove the truth of A (identity theory truth)

C2. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of consciousness

4. That which is not subject to rigorous proof can only be believed (definition of belief)

C3. The subject-independence of consciousness can only be believed.

1.All knowledge et al of reality is dependent on consciousness.
C1. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of reality without proving the subject independence of consciousness.
C3.The subject independence of consciousness can only be believed.

C4. Any belief about objective reality (anything you think/know/observe/measure/experience, if you belief they are true thoughts about an objective reality) IS DEPENDENT (as in, it necessarily is derived from and can not exist without) a belief in the subject-independence of consciousness.

As I have termed subject-indecent consciousness "God", all knowledge et.al of reality (if you believe reality isn't subjective, that is, as I keep stating) is dependent on a belief in God (although the labor is admittedly superfluous).

Thus, a belief in God is fundamental to all beliefs about objective reality.

Thus, reformed epistemology explained.

QED.

So I really don't understand where the existence of this "God" has anything to do with anything. I am not making a metaphysical argument but an epistemological one. Whether or not subject-independent consciousness exists in reality is of no consequence to the argument, but, if you believe in an objective reality it seems rather inescapable that you believe this subject-independent consciousness does exist, regardless of whether you perceive this belief in yourself or not.

Again, I'm fairly confident (like all the way confident) that one cannot plug "carrot" in for "consciousness" and still end up with a sound argument. Carrots are not discrete and unified entities. They are made of atoms and such. They are divisible, and anyones perception of carrots, our labeling of them as such, our knowledge of their properties, is wholly dependent on consciousness. Again, to reiterate a point that is continually being misconstrued I AM NOT saying that the existence of carrots is dependent on consciousness (although as an idealist this is a belief I hold) only that a belief in the objective existence of carrots, apart from anyone's subjective perceptions of them, is dependent upon a belief that consciousness itself is objective (the belief that consciousness exists apart from anyones perception of it.

amkerman wrote:You can't define something in terms of that which it is impossible for it to be.

So you can't define square circles then? Or unicorns? Or contradictions?

Not true, all of those things are readily defined. Be my guest and look them up if you have your doubts.

amkerman wrote: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.

Well no, because the argument didn't hold up with consciousness as the referent either. But this point hardly goes in your favor.

amkerman wrote: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.

No, that was a premise, not a definition. His premise has asserted that square circles cannot exist, which we hold to be true as it can be proved that if x is a square then x is not a circle from the definitions of squares as regular 4 sided plane figures and circles as the locus of a point in plane geometry.

His argument is a valid modus tollens with a true 2nd premise. If the first premise is also true (and we cannot in fact prove or disprove it) then the argument would be sound and thus a proof.

amkerman wrote: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.

No, premise 1 does not "become" anything, it is and remains to be the statement "if god exists then he is a square circle". From that premise (i.e. if it is true) he proves that god cannot exist.

The argument is not compelling for one reason and one reason alone, we doubt the truth of the first premise - is it possible a being called god can exist and not be a square circle? This is a challenge to the soundness of the argument, and a pretty reasonable one.

The argument may be held not to be sound, but it is valid and consistent. Again I draw the contrast to your argument which is neither valid, nor sound.

@thommo

In your logical formulation you are again focusing on the term "God" when you should be focusing on the term "exists".

The argument is if X "exists", then X is a "square circle"
Square circles cant exist

Therefore X doesn't exist

But "X existing" is precluded by X being a square circle, which can't exist.

Also. Revs argument is a metaphysical one, not an epistemological one. I fail to see how they are analogous (unless you are misunderstanding my argument, which seems to be the case for many members so you are in good company).

If E(x) then x=y
-E(y)
Therefore -E(x)

It's not valid. It's not anything. It's nonsense.

amkerman wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]thommo[/b][/color]

In your logical formulation you are again focusing on the term "God" when you should be focusing on the term "exists".

The argument is if X "exists", then X is a "square circle"
Square circles cant exist

Therefore X doesn't exist

But "X existing" is precluded by X being a square circle, which can't exist.

Also. Revs argument is a metaphysical one, not an epistemological one. I fail to see how they are analogous (unless you are misunderstanding my argument, which seems to be the case for many members so you are in good company).

Read the links, I focused on the logical structure. I even removed the labels from parts of the post.

Seriously, please, read the links, they should explain your logical errors.

amkerman wrote:If E(x) then x=y
-E(y)
Therefore -E(x)

That's gibberish, existence is a quantifier, not a predicate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

If birds fly then birds are rocks
Rocks can't fly
Birds can't fly

The only way 1 can make sense is if we assume the hidden premise that (rocks fly)
We then go on to negate that hidden premise in 2 by stating rocks can't fly. This breaks the rule of non-contradiction rendering the entire argument invalid.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

I just disagree thommo. Existence is a predicate.

amkerman wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

I just disagree thommo. Existence is a predicate.

Not in classical logic. What logic are you using?

ETA: That article doesn't support your statement, it's an extensive and comprehensive discussion of the varying philosophical (not logical) views, describing the most common as: "The second thesis commonly, though not universally, held by analytic philosophers might be summed up in the familiar dictum, ‘Existence is not a predicate’."

Just going to link this again, seeing as you appear not to have read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

The salient feature being that in first order classical logic existence is a quantifier and there is no predicate for existence. I recommend you check it out.

I read the link thommo. I've read all your links.

Free logic.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_logic#section_1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/

amkerman wrote:I read the link thommo. I've read all your links.

Oh good, then you agree that "existence is not a predicate" is categorically a true statement about classical logic then I assume, as that is definitively shown in them?

In which case I invite you again to tell us what the logic you are working from is. This is crucial information, without which your arguments are vacuous, as we cannot read them as classical logic (which is, incidentally, the only kind I've ever encountered in informal debate until now).