Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#81  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 2:12 pm

Shrunk wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
xrayzed wrote:
I don't get it either. Everytime someone asks for clarity they simply get a rehash of the original largely incomprehensible post.

After trying to plod through his logic, amkerman's argument appears to reduce to this:

    God is consciousness.
    Consciousness exists.
    Therefore God exists.


Completely correct. That's probably why he refuses to "dumb it down". Once reduced to its basics, it becomes even more obvious how dumb this argument is.


Just because an argument is simple doesn't make it wrong or "dumb". That formulation is completely valid.


And there you have it, folks.

What about this, amkerman?

    If God exists, he is a square circle.

    A square circle cannot exist.

    Therefore, God does not exist.


That's also "completely valid", correct? Do you see any other problems with it, though?


Yes there are problems w it. 1 is an impossibility. If square circles do not exist then "if God exists, he is a square circle" is an impossibility, and the argument fails.
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

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#82  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 2:13 pm

amkerman wrote: Yes there are problems w it. 1 is an impossibility. If square circles do not exist then "if God exists, he is a square circle" is an impossibility, and the argument fails.


That's stated in premise two. However, that has nothing to do with whether premise 1 is true or false. The claim that a square circle cannot exist does not in any way negate the claim that, if God did exist, he would be a square circle. Pretty simple, I would think.
Last edited by Shrunk on May 17, 2012 2:19 pm, edited 2 times 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: 26062
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#83  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 2:14 pm

Are you being deliberately obtuse Amkerman? Shrunk's point was pretty straight forward I can't see why you wouldn't agree.... (saying that just because an argument is logically valid doesn't make it true)
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#84  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 2:21 pm

The argument is not valid.

If God exists precludes the possibility of God being a square circle if square circles cannot exist.

Premise 1 is internally invalid. Thus, the entire argument is invalid.

If God exists, he cannot be a square circle if square circles cannot exist. It's not hard.
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

#85  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 2:27 pm

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.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#86  Postby talkietoaster » May 17, 2012 2:34 pm

amkerman wrote:

For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness
2. A cannot prove the objectivity (subject independence) of B without first proving th objectivity of A


Why is consciousness automatically objective? My consciousness will experience and observe (interprete) reality differently to someone when having what would be the same experience. For example - I am sitting next to someone on a roller coaster we are both on the same ride, same conditions but I may not have enjoyed the ride but the other person would be scared but enjoyed it. The only thing that is objective about that experience is that the roller coast will causes the same affects but our consciousness's will interpret those objective affects differently.

amkerman wrote:

3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first prvoing the objectivity of consciousness
4. A cannot prove the objectivity of A


Why does consciousness have to be objective for Reality to be objective?

amkerman wrote:

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness
6. That which is not susceptible to rigourous proof can only be believed.


You need to explain why consciousness has to be objective? Is there anything in reality the natural world that cannot be rigourously proven but only believed to be true?

amkerman wrote:
7. The objectivity of consciousness can only be believed.
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of reality, is dependent on consciousness
3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first proving the objectivity of consciousness


Isn't believing a subjective thought? You want it to be true not that it is actually objective?

amkerman wrote:

8. The objectivity of reality can only be proven through a belief in the objectivity of consciousness.

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


So reality can only be proven through belief? So I have to believe I think, I have to believe walk?

Knowledge about reality is confirmed from repeating, observing and verification how can believing make something true for everyone when not everyone believes?

This arguement just seems to stem on one thing, you need to believe everything for it to be in reality. I could use your arguement for believing any mythical creature or entity.
''Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.'' - Smart Person at some time.
User avatar
talkietoaster
 
Posts: 1610

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#87  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 2:38 pm

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.
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

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#88  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 2:40 pm

amkerman wrote:The argument is not valid.

If God exists precludes the possibility of God being a square circle if square circles cannot exist.

Premise 1 is internally invalid. Thus, the entire argument is invalid.

If God exists, he cannot be a square circle if square circles cannot exist. It's not hard.


You clearly do not understand what is meant when an argument is said to be "valid." A premise cannot be valid or invalid w/in itself. From premise 1 alone we have no way of knowing whether or not a square circle can exist. That's not until premise 2.

Your objection to Premise one is only based on your presumption that God exists.

Or to put it another way, to parphrase something you said yourself, you agree with my argument. You only reject it because I have called a square circle "God", and you have an irrational aversion to anything that suggests God might not exist.
"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: 26062
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#89  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 2:41 pm

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.


Not sound. Valid.
"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: 26062
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#90  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 2:42 pm

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.


What the fuck? Your argument was in the same logical form as Shrunk's. If you are attacking his you are attacking your own.

We know Shrunk's argument is not true for the 5000000000th time. That's the point. Your arguments are both logically valid, but both have flawed premises which is why they are false. Simple.

Which is why this statement by you is meaningless: "Just because an argument is simple doesn't make it wrong or "dumb". That formulation is completely valid."
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#91  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2012 2:43 pm

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.


Sure they can. In a universe without God

The argument:

All dogs are black

All dogs are not black

All dogs are not black

Is not valid.


Obviously not. But that is not in any way analogous to my argument.

You obviously have no business attempting a complex convoluted philosophical argument as you have in this thread when you don't even understand the most basic principles of formal logic.
"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: 26062
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#92  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 2:45 pm

Shrinks argument is:

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

2. Something cannot exist

3. Therefore God cannot exist.

It's not particularly difficult to understand I don't think.
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

#93  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 2:48 pm

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

#94  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 2:48 pm

We are arguing over whether the statement "Just because an argument is simple doesn't make it wrong or "dumb". That formulation is completely valid." is a good defence of your argument. Stop trying to change the subject, you don't win this debate by proving an argument we all agree is false, to be just that, false.

This is getting hilarious. Similar to the Atheoclast circles thread now.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#95  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 2:50 pm

God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).

Now tell me how a carrot created the universe.
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

#96  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 17, 2012 2:50 pm

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


Which doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Keep trying though.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#97  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 2:51 pm

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.


Either way, it doesn't matter, because for his conclusion to be true, his premise one has to be true. God may as well be a carrot for all the assumptions amkerman is making here.
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

#98  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 2:56 pm

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.
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

#99  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 3:01 pm

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?

How have I changed the topic? I have only been responding to shrunks counter argument.
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

#100  Postby rEvolutionist » May 17, 2012 3:01 pm

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.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest