Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86, Matt8819, amok

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#161  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 2:00 am

jamest wrote:How can an individual who lacks the capacity to know what the fuck they're talking about, be in a position to know someone who does?

(my emphasis)

Whilst I don't think Amkerman does have a solid grasp of most of what he's talked about here, Like Spearthrower, and I'd hazard a guess Shrunk too (though please correct me if this is a misrepresentation Shrunk), I certainly don't think he lacks the capacity to do so. I very much think that if he spent some time studying this material he could learn to be highly competent in this area.

It seems highly rude and personal to suggest that he is completely devoid of the ability to learn. :scratch:

ETA: For what it's worth I find Shrunk's grasp of the basics pretty reasonable, and I don't think he's overreached his knowledge.

Oh wait, were you talking about Shrunk here? :shock:

Well, I'm just bemused by that. He certainly doesn't lack the capacity to learn. He's also correctly identified valid and invalid arguments, whereas Amkerman has repeatedly failed to do so, even after his claim to have read the link to the pages on validity which clearly explain the concept.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#162  Postby amkerman » May 18, 2012 5:46 am

Again, listen. It's glaringly necessary that I keep repeating the same shit over and over. While shrunks argument has fuck-all to do with anything I have said, his argument remains (as has always been the case) invalid.

1. If god exists then God is a square circle.
2. Square circles can't exist.

What do you think are valid conclusions based on these premises?

Answer: none

The only things that can be deduced given these premises is that either:

A. Premise 1 is false, OR
B. Premise 2 is false

Neither of these conclusions follows from the premises. The argument is not valid.

This should not be surprising considering that in classical logic each term (in this case "God" and "square circle" MUST denote at least one existing object.

That @Thommo believes (or maybe more correctly has decided to adopt the position in order to extend a deeply flawed line of reasoning and is unwilling to concede anything, which is not an uncommon occurrence here on RatSkep) "God" and "square circle" are not "terms," but "formulae" is of no avail. It is simply a tautology that "if god exists, he is NOT a non-existent object/formula. As I have repeatedly said, this is not hard. If square circles cannot exist, then, "if God exists, then he is a square circle" IS FALSE. It is an internally flawed statement because it is, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.

If birds fly, then birds are things that can't fly.
Things that can't fly, can't fly.

THEREFORE: wait... for... it... Birds can't fly.

Ta-fucking-da.

This is the type of "logic" that is being spouted. No amour of wiki-links is going to change the fact that it isn't valid, sound, or should be considered "logic" at all.

@shrunk
Yes. I agree that the two previous arguments you posted were valid, as is god is consciousness/consciousness exists/god exists.

What many still seem to be failing to grasp is that I have not made any argument for the existence of god. Instead of attacking straw-men by claiming that my definition of "God" as "subject-independent consciousness" (an lable that I have admitted was superfluous) why don't one of you attack one of the premises or conclusions in my actual argument? I have labeled everything out in the initial post (if you don't understand what one of the words means in the argument just ask and I will operationalize it for you) and each premise/conclusion is no more complex them a simple sentence, so it shouldn't be difficult (unless, of course, the argument is sound, as I believe it to be). The only thing I ask you to keep in mind is that this is not the science forum but the philosophy forum. I neither will nor can operationalize any of the terms in the language of physics. If you are uncomfortable dealing with terms in the English language I suggest you remove yourself to a subforum with a bent you find more conducive to your mode of thought or personal preference. You certainly won't find me in the science forums talking about metaphysical or epistemological positions (unless of course it was on topic-there was an interesting thread started in the physics forum about empirical observations in quantum physics and the need to give up realism: the position that things exist independently of observation which I found quite interesting, though I have not yet contributed) and I respectfully would appreciate the same courtesy to be shown here.

Cheers,
AMK
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: 30
Male

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

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#163  Postby Spearthrower » May 18, 2012 5:57 am

amkerman wrote:Again, listen. It's glaringly necessary that I keep repeating the same shit over and over.


No, it's not necessary. I think everyone understood what's actually there to understand. The problem here is that specific points are being challenged, and rather than address those specific points, you simply regurgitate your defense again.

While this obstinance might possibly serve you well in your future profession, I think you'll also need to be able to see when your argument is completely failing to hold any water with your audience.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 18055
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#164  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 5:58 am

You claimed to have read the basic definitions of "term" and "valid", yet you continue to apply them incorrectly Amkerman. I can only advise that you read them again. Your understanding is clearly flawed at the most elementary level.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#165  Postby amkerman » May 18, 2012 6:09 am

Just to be clear, you are still standing by your assertion that,

"If God exists, he is a non-existent"

is a valid premise?
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: 30
Male

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

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#166  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 6:19 am

amkerman wrote:Just to be clear, you are still standing by your assertion that,

"If God exists, he is a non-existent"

is a valid premise?


No, I haven't asserted it is. Validity of premises is a different (and much less commonly referred to) thing to validity of arguments.

A valid argument is one in which the logical form is such that each step in the argument is a correct application of a rule of inference (e.g. modus ponens, modus tollens). A valid premise is a premise which is true under all interpretations (which are broadly speaking assignments of truth values to all the propositional variables, at least in propositional logic which is the easiest situation to understand).

An argument can be valid whether or not its premises are true (or valid). An argument is only sound if it is valid and has true premises. You have extensively critiqued arguments as invalid, not unsound.

Given your misunderstanding it's hard to answer your question, because you almost certainly don't mean to ask me if the premise is valid, maybe you want to know if I think it can be adequately represented by a wff (well formed formula) and thus be suitable for use in logical argument, the answer to that is most certainly.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#167  Postby Onyx8 » May 18, 2012 6:31 am

Having read all this, it would seem clear that you, Amkerman, are out of your depth on your own argument. The thing to do now would be to go and read and study and grasp some or all of what Thommo and others have been trying to tell you, then return and reformulate your position in the light of your new understanding.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13463
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#168  Postby hackenslash » May 18, 2012 6:37 am

amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.
Dogma is the death of the intellect
There is no more thunderous prescient of doom than the flutter of tiny wings...
User avatar
hackenslash
Suspended User
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 17992
Age: 45
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#169  Postby amkerman » May 18, 2012 6:46 am

Maybe this will help you:

What you seem to be arguing for the validity of is

If it's god, then it's a square circle
It's not a square circle
Therefore, it's not god

What I arguing against the validity of is:

If it's an existent X, then it is a non-existent X.

In classical logic the former argument is valid, as it assumes that there exists both gods and square circles. This Is the problem when using classical logic to talk about that which we are unsure of the existence of (or are sure of the non-existence of). You falsely believe that it A->B/-B/-A is the correct formulation. It's not.

The proper formulation is: if God exists then god is a square circle (E!(x))->(x=y). This entails E!(y).
Adding -E!(y) breaks the law of non-contradiction. It is an impossibility.

This is the last I will comment on the subject. If you still disagree we seem to be at an impasse. No hard feelings.

This is why you cannot talk about empty sets (non-existent "x's") using classical logic.
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: 30
Male

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

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#170  Postby amkerman » May 18, 2012 6:48 am

hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.
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: 30
Male

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

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#171  Postby amkerman » May 18, 2012 6:58 am

Actually @Thommo I will attempt to explain why you cannot talk about non-existent "x's" in classical logic before I end my discourse on the subject.

If x doesn't exist, there is no true statement that can be possible made about x. If x doesnt exist, x is meaningless. X->,V,=,etc y cannot possibly be true. -x is not true either, It is vacuous.
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: 30
Male

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

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#172  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 7:20 am

amkerman wrote:Actually Thommo I will attempt to explain why you cannot talk about non-existent "x's" in classical logic before I end my discourse on the subject.

If x doesn't exist, there is no true statement that can be possible made about x. If x doesnt exist, x is meaningless. X->,V,=,etc y cannot possibly be true. -x is not true either, It is vacuous.


You can attempt to.

If x is some element of the domain of discourse, then x->y is not a wff in the first place, nor is ¬x, let alone them being statements (which are wffs with no free variables). Its status as existent or non existent doesn't come into the matter in the slightest. These things aren't wffs/statements in free logic either by the way. To get from a term to a wff you need a relation symbol. E.g > , = , < . For example, if x , y are terms then x=y is a formula. We can apply connectives to formulas, but not to terms, typically we represent formulas with upper case letters A, B, C... and retain lower case for variables and constants, with c, k as typical symbols for constants and x, y, z for typical variables.

Example
let x, y be terms.
let A denote the formula "x=y"
let B denote the formula "x=x"

Then A->B is a tautology. Whereas x->y is garbage.

What you're actually driving at here (because there is some truth to the loose statement "you cannot talk about non-existent "x's" in classical logic") is that in classical logic existence is not a predicate.

What this means is that whilst it is possible to discuss things which are logically contradictory (e.g. "x is a circle and x is a square") there can be no element of the domain that denotes "a thing that is a circle and is a square". So to represent Shrunk's statement about square circles, we would take a standard geometric definition of a square and represent it by a formula with a free variable that represents a set of points, and the formula S(x) would (avoiding symbolic logic for the moment) say "the set of points x forms a square" - note here that the domain is sets of points, so x as a variable symbol ranging over this is fine as long as we restrict ourselves to non-trivial (non-empty) geometries*. Similarly we would take a formula C(x) saying "the set of points x forms a circle". Thus we have square circles defined by the formula (S(x)∧C(x)).

So to emphasise, the term in this formula is "x", which represents an arbitrary set of points in plane geometry, the formula is (S(x)∧C(x)) "x is a square and x is a circle" and is unsatisfiable - i.e. there is no set of points in plane geometry which constitutes a square and which constitutes a circle. Or if you prefer ¬∃x(S(x)∧C(x)) is a valid statement in the theory of plane geometry.

*We could use free logic and allow talk of the trivial geometry too, but why bother - it's trivial.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#173  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 8:08 am

amkerman wrote:This is the last I will comment on the subject. If you still disagree we seem to be at an impasse. No hard feelings.


Given that you've conceded the point, I can't see why there would be. ;)
amkerman wrote:If it's god, then it's a square circle
It's not a square circle
Therefore, it's not god

...

In classical logic the former argument is valid


Obviously this was the exact opposite of your earlier repeated declarations on this matter, so it seems we've fixed the misunderstanding. :thumbup:
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#174  Postby Scar » May 18, 2012 8:27 am

amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.


No, you weren't. That's Hack's point.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3164
Age: 28
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#175  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 8:30 am

Scar wrote:
amkerman wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
amkerman wrote:my rejection of God


The statement of somebody who was never an atheist and doesn't understand what an atheist is.


I'm not sure if you said this knowing that I was an atheist for three years or so or not, or just purposefully disregarding that fact. I've stated such multiple times in my tenure here. Either way. What you have just said misses the mark. I was an atheist.

Or at least an atheist in the sense that people here use the word.


No, you weren't. That's Hack's point.


If he didn't believe in a god, no matter how poor his reasoning or lack of it was, he was an atheist.

I suppose it's possible he's lying, but I don't see any rational reason to assume he is, or any rational reason to start claiming it here without evidence.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#176  Postby VazScep » May 18, 2012 8:45 am

amkerman wrote: The proper formulation is: if God exists then god is a square circle (E!(x))->(x=y).
Do you really want an equals on the right hand side of that implication?

In classical (and free) logic, both sides of an equation should denote unique individuals. But the phrase "a square circle" does not. This is not simply because there are no square circles. Even if there were, the phrase wouldn't denote a unique individual. Similarly, the phrases "a large circle", "a right-angled triangle" and "a President" don't denote unique individuals. When you've got that indefinite article a, you can't be pointing to anything definite.

What you would normally assume is being expressed here is not an equation, but a predication or role assignment. When we say "God is a square circle", we are saying either that God belongs to the class of square circles, or that God has the property of being square and circular. This is what Thommo has done, by rendering the sentence as "S(God) ∧ C(God)".

So in free logic, you might have "(E!(God)) → S(God) ∧ C(God)", which would correctly formalise "if God exists, then God is a square circle." If you later concluded that there is nothing which is both square and circular, you'd be forced to conclude that God does not exist.

This entails E!(y).
It doesn't. You started with an implication. If the left hand side is false, it wouldn't entail much at all.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 2301

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#177  Postby jamest » May 18, 2012 9:01 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:How can an individual who lacks the capacity to know what the fuck they're talking about, be in a position to know someone who does?

(my emphasis)

Whilst I don't think Amkerman does have a solid grasp of most of what he's talked about here, Like Spearthrower, and I'd hazard a guess Shrunk too (though please correct me if this is a misrepresentation Shrunk), I certainly don't think he lacks the capacity to do so. I very much think that if he spent some time studying this material he could learn to be highly competent in this area.

It seems highly rude and personal to suggest that he is completely devoid of the ability to learn. :scratch:

I didn't make that suggestion. He himself stated that he wasn't including himself in the bunch of people who knew what they were talking about. My ensuing question was about how he could then judge who the people were, who know what they're talking about.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
jamest
 
Posts: 11719
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#178  Postby Thommo » May 18, 2012 9:28 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:How can an individual who lacks the capacity to know what the fuck they're talking about, be in a position to know someone who does?

(my emphasis)

Whilst I don't think Amkerman does have a solid grasp of most of what he's talked about here, Like Spearthrower, and I'd hazard a guess Shrunk too (though please correct me if this is a misrepresentation Shrunk), I certainly don't think he lacks the capacity to do so. I very much think that if he spent some time studying this material he could learn to be highly competent in this area.

It seems highly rude and personal to suggest that he is completely devoid of the ability to learn. :scratch:

I didn't make that suggestion. He himself stated that he wasn't including himself in the bunch of people who knew what they were talking about. My ensuing question was about how he could then judge who the people were, who know what they're talking about.


Well, I'm certainly glad you didn't mean to suggest that he lacks the capacity to know what he's talking about, and merely accept his suggestion that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the finer points of technical logic. There is rather a large gap between the two.
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12594

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#179  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2012 10:20 am

amkerman wrote:Again, listen. It's glaringly necessary that I keep repeating the same shit over and over. While shrunks argument has fuck-all to do with anything I have said, his argument remains (as has always been the case) invalid.

1. If god exists then God is a square circle.
2. Square circles can't exist.

What do you think are valid conclusions based on these premises?

Answer: none

The only things that can be deduced given these premises is that either:

A. Premise 1 is false, OR
B. Premise 2 is false

Neither of these conclusions follows from the premises. The argument is not valid.


Still struggling with the basics, I see.

Those are not conclusions. They are premises. How can a premise not follow from itself? That is what you are saying. IOW, you're saying from this:

Square circles can't exist.

we cannot conclude:

Therefore, square circles can't exist.

:lol:


This should not be surprising considering that in classical logic each term (in this case "God" and "square circle" MUST denote at least one existing object.


Except it seems this is not the case, but rather a conclusion you have drawn based your complete ignorance of the field

That @[color=#CC0000][b]Thommo[/b][/color] believes (or maybe more correctly has decided to adopt the position in order to extend a deeply flawed line of reasoning and is unwilling to concede anything, which is not an uncommon occurrence here on RatSkep) "God" and "square circle" are not "terms," but "formulae" is of no avail. It is simply a tautology that "if god exists, he is NOT a non-existent object/formula. As I have repeatedly said, this is not hard. If square circles cannot exist, then, "if God exists, then he is a square circle" IS FALSE. It is an internally flawed statement because it is, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.


A conditional statement cannot be true or false, And my statement is not logically impossible. "God exists and is a square circle" would be an impossible statement, (though not on the basis of classical logic). I would think the difference between that statement and my original one should be obvious to you, though that may be optimisitc of me.

If birds fly, then birds are things that can't fly.
Things that can't fly, can't fly.

THEREFORE: wait... for... it... Birds can't fly.

Ta-fucking-da.

This is the type of "logic" that is being spouted. No amour of wiki-links is going to change the fact that it isn't valid, sound, or should be considered "logic" at all.


See, now that's an example of a premise that is internally contradictory. And does not resemble my premise at all. If I had said "If God is a square circle, God is not a square circle", then you'd have a point. But I didn't, not even close.

@[color=#CC0000][b]shrunk[/b][/color]
Yes. I agree that the two previous arguments you posted were valid, as is god is consciousness/consciousness exists/god exists.


Good lord! How can they be valid and my previous one not be? You've been ranting on and on about how my original argument was "invalid" becaue "square circles" are nonexistent and (according to your misunderstanding) nonexistent entities cannot be used in classical logic. And then you turn around and say that two other argument that also use "square circle" are valid, even though they state that square circles exist! So is this another rule of logic that you've made up: That it is permissable to use non-existent entities, but only if you falsely claim that they exist? :scratch:

This really becoming embarassing for you....

What many still seem to be failing to grasp is that I have not made any argument for the existence of god. Instead of attacking straw-men by claiming that my definition of "God" as "subject-independent consciousness" (an lable that I have admitted was superfluous) why don't one of you attack one of the premises or conclusions in my actual argument?


Umm. maybe because the fact that you have admitted that the key point of your argument is "suprefluous" renders the entire argument a steaming pile of nonsense.

And also because you said the fact that it was "valid" (though you don't actually understand the meaning of the term) was sufficient to demonstrate it was true.


I have labeled everything out in the initial post (if you don't understand what one of the words means in the argument just ask and I will operationalize it for you) and each premise/conclusion is no more complex them a simple sentence, so it shouldn't be difficult (unless, of course, the argument is sound, as I believe it to be). The only thing I ask you to keep in mind is that this is not the science forum but the philosophy forum. I neither will nor can operationalize any of the terms in the language of physics. If you are uncomfortable dealing with terms in the English language I suggest you remove yourself to a subforum with a bent you find more conducive to your mode of thought or personal preference. You certainly won't find me in the science forums talking about metaphysical or epistemological positions (unless of course it was on topic-there was an interesting thread started in the physics forum about empirical observations in quantum physics and the need to give up realism: the position that things exist independently of observation which I found quite interesting, though I have not yet contributed) and I respectfully would appreciate the same courtesy to be shown here.


Your argument is no more philosophy than it is science. It's nonsense, pure and simple..
"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: 19450
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#180  Postby CookieJon » May 18, 2012 10:22 am

Animavore wrote:Always 'arguments' for God, never ' evidence'.

err.... The whole universe!?

:roll:
User avatar
CookieJon
Moderator
 
Posts: 8384
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest